Scripture being sufficient Ans. 1. This is the argument of Arminians Episcopius saith and expresly Smalcius Qui vnlt sensum scripturae ab ilâ—s confessionibus peti tacitè deserit scripta Apostolica traditiones humanas commendat And therefore such decisions are â—ay the Remonstrantes Pestes Ecclesiarum regni Anâ—christi idest tyrannidis fulcra tibicines Secondly this Arâ—ument may be as well propounded against the preaching of the Word all printed Sermons Commentaries and interpretation of Scripture as against a Confession For if the doctrine in Serâ—ons bee not agreeable to Scripture then in so farre as Ministers commend and command it to their hearers it is unlawfâ—ll if it be agreeable to the Scripture it is needlesse the Scriptures saith the Socinian Smalcius are sufficient Our brethren answer Preaching is an ordinance of God but a â—atforme of confession is not an ordinance of God Answ. A platforme as it is conceived in such a stile meâ—hod and characters and words is a humane ordinance Tali â—rie ordine and so is preaching but we sweare to no plat-â—orme in that consideration but a platforme according to the truth contained in it in which sense onely it is sworne unto is the Word of God as are systemes of Divinity â—ermons printed and Preached and so though preaching be an Ordinanced God as it is Rom. 10. 14. yet according to the words expression dialect method or doctrine it is an humane ordinance and so the Argument is against preaching as against our platforme Our Brethrens second Argument is The Platforme abridgeth Christian liberty to try all things and so though it be some means of unity yet it is a dangerous hinderance of some verity binding men to rest upon their former apprehensions and knowledge without libery to better their judgements Ans. 1. This in stile of language and truth of words is the very argument of Arminianâ— So in their Preface and in their Apology it selfe they say All liberty of prophecing and disputing against the Orthodox faith is taken away if men be tied and obliged to decisions and confessions of Churches and Synods Yea to make an end of controversies saith Episcopius otherwayes then by perswading is to bring a tyranny into the Church of Jesus Christ and wonderfully to bind if not to take away liberty of consciences So in their Apology they say confessions and decisions of Synods imposed by Oath and to be firmely believed arâ— contrary to the prayers of Saints where they pray that God would teach them his starutes and reveale his Law and Testimonies â—â— them and open their Eyes to behold the wonders of Gods Law But the truth is though these of Berea did well to try Pauls Doctrine if it was consonant to the Scriptures or not Yet Pauls Doctrine was the determination apostolick of Gods Spirit to the which they were firmely to adhere and their judgements are to be bettered in graduali revelatione creditorum â—â—â— revelatione plurium credendorum in cleare revelation of things revealed For so the children of God are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 2 Pet. 3. 14. After Christ is once revealed but not in believing in a new Christ or in believing of poynts contrary to the confession of faith The Argument presupposeth the Doctrine of the Arminians that there be a number of points in our confession of which we have no certainty of faith that they are Gods truth but are things controverted and being not fundamentall poynts may be holden or we may forsake them as false after better information Which indeed maketh our faith of Gods Word â—o full perswasion but as the learned professors of Leyden say a faith of an houre or a month or a yeare which we may â—ast away the next yeare And this is to deny all confessions and points of truth with pretence that the Spirit hath revealed new truth but how are these new revealed truths the Revelation whereof wee obtaine by prayer rather workes of the spirit of truth then the former poynts which wee retract No man by this can be rooted and built in the faith of any thing except in the faith of things simply fundamentall By which meanes all poynts at least many of them betwixt us and Papists Arminiaâ— Macedonians Sabellians Arrians Anabapâ—tiste are matters reconcileable and either side may be holden without hazard of salvation Neither is this definition of confessions any tyranny Because confessions are to be believed in so far as they are agreable to Gods Word and lay upon us an obligation secondary onely yet are they not so loose as that we may leap from poynts of faith and make the doctrine of faith arena gladiatoria a fencing field for Gamesters and Fencers The materiall object of our faith and the secondary ground and foundation thereof may be very well and is Gods Word primary is preaching confessions Creeds Symbols which are not serie ordine Scripturae and yet have wee certainty of Divine faith in these things because the formall object is because God so saith in hiâ— Scripture and wee believe these with certainty of Divine Faith under this reduplication because the Lord hath spoken these quoad sensum in true meaning though not in illâ scrie ordine But more of this hereafter CHAP. 6. SECT 6. Touching Officers and their election OUr Author laboureth to prove that Pastors and Doctors are different Officers which wee will not much improves but if the meaning be that they are inconsistent in one man person wee are against him 1. Because the Apostles in their owne persons and in feeding the flock 2 Tim. 3. doth both under the name of Overseers and Bishops and exercised both as they could according as they did finde the auditory 2. Because the formall objects the informing of the judgement and exhorting are not so different as that they should be imcompatible for if God give them gifts both for the Doctors Chaire and the pastors Pulpit as hee often doth what should hinder but the Church may call one and the same man to both the Pastor and the Doctors Chaire as hee is able to overtake both Author 1. Reas. 1 Cor. 12. 8. To one is given a word of wisdomâ— for direction of practice to another a word of knowledge for direction of judgement Ans. This proveth they be different gifts and Offices yet not that they are incompatible in one person as one may have both gifts given unto him as is cleare by experience 2 Reas. Author ib. Hee speaketh of diverse members of the Church as of diverse members of the naturall body v. 4. 5. All the members have not one Office it is the action of the Tongue to speak not to see Ans. The comparison holdeth not in all The eye cannot heare the eare cannot see yet the pastor may both see as pastor and heare and delate to the Church as the Churches eare the manners of
all fundamentalls 3. Totally and finally But wee are not to beleeve Papists who say things are fundamentall materially in themselves as all points necessary to bee beleeved but things are not formally fundamentall but such things onely as the Church dâ—fineth to be fundamentall But 1. the foundation of our Faith is Gods Word and Gods Word is necessary to be beleeved to salvation whether the Church define it or no to abstaine from Idolatry is necessary to be beleeved though Aaron and the Church of Israel say the contrary neither doth Gods Word borrow authority from men 2. If the Church may make points to be fundamentall by their definition whereas before they were not fundamentall then may the Church make articles of faith Sure I am Paipsts as Gerson Occam Almaine Suarez yea and a very Bellarmine is against this Yea and by that same reason they may make fundamentall points to bee no fundamentall points and they may turne the Apostles Creed into no faith at all for ejusdem est potestos creare annihilare 3. There cannot be a greater power in the Church to define Articles of faith then is in God himselfe but the very authority of God doth not define a matter to bee an article of faith except the necessitie of the matter so require for God hath determined in his word that Paul left his cloake at Treas but that Paul left his cloake at Troas is not I hope an article of faith or a fundamentall point of salvation 4. What can the Church doe saith Vincentius Lyrinens but declare that that is to be beleeved which before in it selfe was to bee beleeved and Bellarmine saith Councells maketh nothing to be of infallible verity and so doth Scotus say Verity before heresies erat de fide was a matter of faith though it was not declared to be so by the Church Determinatio non facit vertatem saith Oâ—cam The Churches determination maketh no truth 3. The evidence of knowledge of fundamentals is gravely to bee considered Hence these distinctions 1. One may beleeve that Christ is the Sonne of God by a Divine faith as Peter doth Matth. 16. 17. and yet doubt of the necessary consequences fundamentall Ergo Christ must bee delivered into the hands of sinners and bee crucified as the same Peter doubted of this for as one may fall in a grievous sinne though regenerated and faile in act and yet remaine in grace in habitu the seed of God remaining in him so may Peter and the Apostles doubt of a fundamentall point of Christs rising from the dead John 20. v 8 9. in an act of weakenesse and yet have saving faith in Christ as it is like many of of the Saints at Corinth denyed an article of their Faith the rising againe of the dead one act of unbeleefe maketh not an infidell 2. Dist. A simple Papist and a Lutheran not well educated doth beleeve upon the same former ground that Christ is true man hath an habitual faith of this article that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of David yet holdeth transubstantiation or consubstantiatiâ— that Christs body is in many sundry places in heaven and earth on this side of the Sea beyond Sea yet the connâ—xion betwixt Christs humanitie and this monster of transubstantiation not being possible all the error may be meerely philosophick that the extention of quantitative parts without or beyond part is not the essence of a quantitative body while as the rude man beleeveth firmely that Christ is true man and so beleeveth contradictory things by good consequence therefore the qualitie of the conscience of the beleever is to be looked into since fundamentall heresie is essentially in the mind and pertinacy and selfe-conviction doth inseparably follow it 1. There is a conscience simply doubting of fundamentall points this may be with a habit of sound faith 2. A scrupulous conscience which from light grounds is brangled about some fundamentall points and this is often in sound beleevers who may and doe beleeve but with a scruple 3. A conscience beleeving opinions and conjecturing and guessing as in Atheists this is damnable but where obstinacy is as defending with pertinacie transubstantiation and that it is lawfull to adore bread this pertinacious defending of Idolatry doth inferre necessarily that the faith of the article of Christs humanitie is but false and counterfeit and not saving 3. Dist. There is a certitude of adherence formall and a certitude of adherence virtuall A certitude of adherence formall is when one doth adhere firmly to the faith of fundamentalls A certitude of adherence virtuall is when with the formall adherence to some fundamentall points there is an ignorance of other fundamentall points and yet withall a gracious disposition and habit to beleeve other fundamentalls when they shall bee clearely revealed out of the word so Luke 24. Christ exponed the resurrection and the articles of Christs sufferings and glorification vers 25 26 27. to the Disciples who doubted of these before and yet had saving faith of other fundamentall points Matth. 16. 17. 18. 4. Hence there be two sorts of fundamentalls some principally and chiefely so called even the elements and beginning of the doctrine of Christ as Credenda things to be beleeved in the Creed the object of our faith and pâ—tenda things that we aske of God expressed in the Lords Prayer the object of our hope specially 2. Agenda things to be done contained in the decalogue the object of our love to God and our brethren Others are so secundarily fundamentall or lesse fundamentalls as deduced from these yea there be some artcles of the Creed principally fundamentall these all are explicitely to be beleeved noted by Vigilius Martyr and Pareus as that Christ died and rose againe c. Other Articles are but modi articulorum fundamentalium and expositions and evident determinations of cleare articles As Christs incarnation and taking on our flesh is explained by this conceived of the holy Ghost and borne of the Virgin Mary the death and suffering of Christ is exponed by subordinate articles as that he suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucisied c. and these lesser fundamentalls are to be beleeved necessitate praecepti because God commandeth them but happily non necessitate medii It is possible many bee in glory who beleeve not explicitely but onely in the disposition of the mind as some are baptized in voto in their desire onely these lesser fundamentalls it is enough they have the faith of non-repugnancy or negative adherence to these so as they would not deny them if they had beene proponed to them in a distinct and cleare way 5. The faith of fundamentalls is implicit three wayes 1. In respect of the degree of beleeving 2. In respect of the object 3. In respect of the subject or our adherence to things beleeved In respect of degrees the faith is implicite and weake three wayes as Calvin may teach 1. Because we are
Church is no supernaturall act though there be a morall obligation tying the professours to the supernaturall sincerity of the act yet there is no essentiall obligation as touching the essence of a visible member tying him thereunto and therefore the Magistrate may compell thereunto and so Antonius following Gregorius doe teach that an indirect compulsion to the faith is lawfull and the compelling power of the Magistrate is terminated upon the profession not upon the hypocrisie of the profession else it were as good an argument to prove that the Magistrate by the sword cannot compell subjects to abâ—taine from murther sorcery perjury because many in an hypocriticall and servile manner for feare of the Magistrates wrath not for feare of God doe abstaine from these ils nor is their abstinence from worshipping idols a thing of it selfe as the Magistrate commandeth it supernaturall Neither would men by the Covenant of the Lord which King Asa did cause the people to sweare to wit that they should seeke the Lord God of their fathers 2 Chron. 15. 12. be compelled so as their seeking of God should not be willingly performed 5. This opinion is the way to Arminian liberty of conscience that men in a Christian Common-wealth may be of any Religion and the Magistrate is to behold men as an indifferent spectator not caring what religion they bee of whether they be Papists Jewes Pagans Anabaptists Socinians Macedonians c. which should inferre that the Magistrate were no nurse-father of the true Church nor yet a preserver of Religion if men might be of any Religion Neither is this the way as saith Robinson to the Papists implicite faith when men beleeveth as the Church beleeveth though they know not what it is nor is it a compelling of men as he saith to blasphemy and apparent wickednesse because the Magistrate is not to compell to profession of the truth immediately and without any foregoing information of the mind for the Church is to teach and instruct in all the externall acts of worship before the Magistrate doth compell to these acts yea and the same Robinson acknowledgeth that Jehoshaphat made compulsive lawes about Religion Ergo if he should execute these Lawes he should compell to some acts of Religion and should compell to hypocrisie as the same Mr. Robinson argueth against us 4. Conclus It is one thing to command acts of divine worship under the paine of civill punishment and another thing to punish or inflict civill punishment when these commandements are transgressed Christian Princes may doe both And that they doe the latter by Gods commandement and warrant is cleare in that Jehu destroyed all the house of Ahab for Idolatry and killed Baals Priests Good Josiah killed the Priests of the high places and burnt their bones upon the Altar Elias when the Magistrate would not doe his duty in an extraordinary way killed Baals Priests and if the Magistrate also in the New Testament have the sword given to him of God for the punishing of evill doers as Rom. 13. 4 5. that same Law must now also have force though in the use of the sword sundry hereticks are here to be distinguished as 1. seducing hereticks drawing others away from the worship of the true God to idolatry such are not to be pitied by the Magistrate as Deut. 13. 5 6 7. Zach. 13. 4 5 6. whereas seduced and drawne away soules for simple heresie cannot be put to death 2. Hereticks falling away in many particulars from the faith to Popery or other hereticall wayes are more severely to be punished then those who are hereticks in one or two fundamentall points onely And those who are universall Apostates and fall from the Christian faith to Judaisme and Paganisme deserve no lesse then death 3. Selfe-condemned hereticks after sufficient information and malitious opposers of the truth deserve harder dealing then simply seduced hereticks 4. All who beleeve blasphemies to be truth and hold them are not to be reckoned amongst formall blasphemers whose malice carrieth them on to raile upon the unspotted wayes of God 5. No hereticks having false opinions of God such as Antinomians and Libertines who thinke that the regenerate cannot sinne or that the worshipping of a creature is not idolatry can be innocent as if â—â—â—mply acts of the judgement and mind not conforme to Gods will revealed in his word were not sinnes as Arminians teach whereas all the faculties of the soule are under Gods Law 2. Hardly doth the mind conceive false thoughts of God or his worship but there be wicked crookes in the will and affections inclining thereunto the mind and smoaking the mind with will-guiltinesse 6. Except God was too rigorous and cruell in the Old Testament God avert such blasphemous thoughts what ever punishment even to bloud and death was inflicted upon hereticks seducing Prophets Idolaters Apostates these same stande yet in the plentitude of morall obligation against such as offend in the New Testament if the Magistrate beare the Lords sword as he doth in the New Testament Rom. 13. 4 5. Monfortius the Anabaptist as Beza saith had no Scripture to say because Christ is a meeke Saviour all corporall punishment inflicted upon hereticks in the Old Testament is turned over in spirituall punishment onely our brethren who deny that the Magistrate can compell any to an externall profession of the Gospel doe herein follow Arminians and Socinians So the Reâ—onstrants and Episcopius deny that the Magistrate can use any bodily punishment against hereticks The learned Professors of Leiden observe that Arminians here teach that same with the Socinians and the same is refuted well by Vedelius yea and Gerardus and Mersnerus and other pretended Disciples of Luther in this side with Arminians and Socinians and Socinians teach in this 1. that Hereticks should not be molested nor punished with the sword So Socinus Theophilus Nicolaides Ostorodius because the tares are not to be rooted out till harvest 2. Episcopius Slatius amongst Arminians and Ostorodius and the Catechise of Raccovia teach farther that the Magistrate may punish by fines and pecuniall mulcts but he cannot shed bloud or punish to death any murtherer because the Commandement of our meeke Saviour doth not permit to take away any mans life now it is certaine meeke Jesus while hee was on earth did neither fine nor imprison more then put to death 3. Soâ—inians teach that all warres under the new Testament are unlawfull for saith Smalâ—ius warres cannot consist with the 〈◊〉 of our enemie commanded by Christ Socinus and Ostorodius say it is an old precept not to shed blood and never retracted in the New Testament and God licenced it to the Jewes because he promised to them an earthly kingdome which hee hath not now promised under the New Testament Our Divines hold ringleading and seducing hereticks are to bee punished to death for so Beza Junius
by the dominion of free-will but this is Pelagianisme and Arminianisme and Papists and Pelagians will needs examine the inclinations powers and motions of the soule which goe before the wills consent or arise in us without the wills consent from all subjection to a Law that so originall sinne may bee no sinne because as Pâ—â—agius said it is not voluntary and concupiscence when the will joyneth no consent to it is no sinne yea so the unbeleefe and ignorance of fundamentall points as they remaine in the mind shall bee no sinne 3. If this bee no sinne we are not to pray for illumination to see either the truth on the one side nor on the other and what actions wee doe according to these opinions in things not fundamentall wee doe them not with any certaintie of faith or any plerophorie but blindly or doubtingly and so sinfully which is expresly condemned Rom. 14. 13. and is expressely against that full assurance of faith that wee are to have in those very actions which in their owne nature are indifferent as is evident Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing uncleane of it selfe â— 5. Let every one bee fully perswaded in his owne mind 4. If they be not sinnes then are none to bee rebuked for these opinions no more then they are to bee excommunicated for them and though any erre in points not fundamentall they are not to bee rebuked yea nor to bee convinced of them by the light of the word 2. If they bee sinnes then when they are publickly prosested they must scandalize our brother but there bee no sinnes which scandalize our brother but they are susceptible and in capacitie to bee committed with obstinacie Every sinne sub ratione scandali is the subject of Church-censure Yea Iâ—m 16. 17. Every one is to bee avoyded who causeth divisions and 〈◊〉 es contrary to the doctrine which the Church hath learned of the Apostles and every one who walketh disorderly 2 Thess. 3. 11. and 〈◊〉 not the commandement of the Apostles is to bee excommunicated 〈◊〉 hee bee ashamed v. 14. but opinions contrary to the Apostles doctrine in non-fundamentalls are not fundamentalls and if they bee professed cause divisions and offences contrary to the Apostolik doctrine for many non-fundamentalls are the Apostles doctrine 3. What ever tendeth to the subversion of fundamentalls tendeâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 to the subversion of faith and so doth much truly scandalizâ—anâ— bring on damnation that Christ hath ordained to be removed out of the Church by Church-censures but erroneous opinions in points not fundamentall and in superstructures being professed and instilled in the eares and simple mindes of others tend to the subversion of fundamentalls as having connexion by just consequent with fundamentalls and doe scandalize and bring on doubtings about the foundation and so bring damnation Ergo erroneous opinions in points not fundamentall must be removed out of the Church by Church-censures The proposition is cleare he that falleth in a publicke scandalous sinne is to be delivered to Satan both for his owne sake that he be not damned himselfe but that 1 Cor. 5. 5. to the destruction of the flesh the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so also for others because a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump v. 6. The assumption is proved by dayly experience for corruption in Discipline and Government in the Church of Rome brought on corruption in Doctrine and the same did we find in the Churches of Scotland and England 4. Fundamentalls are no other thing then that which the Apostle calleth Heb. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first principles of the oracles of God and ch 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Principles of Christ which are laid as foundations as ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not laying the foundation againe c. Then non-fundamentalls must be such superstructures as are not the first Principles of the Oracles of God and are not the Doctrine of the Principles of Christ. But the Apostle will not have us to fluctuate and doubt as Skeptickes in a Pyâ—rhonian Vacillation and Uncertainty in these which he calleth the superstructures 1. As is evident by his words 11 Of whom we have many things to say and hard to be uttered but you are dull of hearing 12. For when for the time yee ought to be teachers yee have need that one teach you againe which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God and are become such as have neede of milke and not of strong food 13. For every one that useth milke is unskilfull in the word of righteousnesse for he is a babe 14. But strong meate belongeth to them that are of full age even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discerne both good and evill Chap. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the doctrine of the beginning of Christ let us goe on unto perfection not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead workes c. Whence it is more then evidently apparent to any intelligent mind 1. That when he saith they ought to be teachers of others he cannot be thought to meane that they should teach fundamentalls onely to others because he would have them to be capable of the food of such as are stronger and have their senses exercised to discerne good and ill and will have them carried on to perction now fundamentalls are expressely the foode of babes which bâ—â— neede of milke c. 6. v. 12. and not the foode of the stronger if then they ought to teach superstructures and non-fundamentalls to others they cannot teach and exhort privately for of such he speaketh these things whereof they have no certainty of faith and which they beleeve with a reserve as ready to reject them to morrow upon second thoughts for what we teach to others those as I conceive we are oblieged to speake because we beleeve Psal. 116. 10. 2 Cor. 4. 13. and those we are to perswade because we know not with a reserve but with certainty of faith the terror of the Lord 2 Cor. 5. 11. If it be said teachers now are not oblieged to know all that they teach now to be divine truths with such a certainty of faith as Prophets and Apostles who were ledde by an infallible Spirit for our private exhorting our publick Sermons come not from a Spirit as infallible as that Spirit which spake and wrote canonick Scripture for we may erre in exhorting in Preaching in writing but the pen-men of canonick Scripture were infallible I answer the pen-men of Scripture when they did speak and write Scripture were infallible de jure de facto they could neither erre actually and by Gods word they were oblieged not to erre and in that they were freer from error then we are who now succeed them to preach and write but what God hath revealed in his word whether they be fundamentalls or superstructures doth obliege
changeth not he can reveale no contradictory truths for one of them must be a lie and he is the Lord who cannot lie Answ. Then I say these non-fundamentals are in themselves and intrinsecally certaine and if God reveale them in his Word he must reveale them under the notion of things certaine and we are to beleeve them as certaine truths having intrinsecall necessity in themselves from the authority of God the revealer therefore I am not to beleeve them with a fluctuation of mind to casheere the truth of them to morrow and the next and the third morrow But you say I doe beleeve non-fundamentals as they are revealed now they are not revealed to me in the word in that measure and degree of clearnesse and evidence of light that fundamentall points of faith are revealed therefore I may lawfully beleeve these non-fundamentals which are lesse evidently revealed with a reserve that upon the supposall I see I had an error of judgement in taking them to be truths whereas now I see them to be untruths I doe renounce them but because fundamentals are clearely revealed I am to beleeve them without any reserve at all Answ. The degrees of revelation and proposals of truths to our minds lesse or more evident or lesse evident so they be revealed by God in a sufficient measure of evidence they free us from obligation of faith in tanto non in toto as is cleare John 15. 22. If I had not come to them they should not have had sinne the sin of unbeliefe and in such a measure yet if God reveale these non-fundamentals though not so perspicuously as he revealeth fundamentals we are obliged to know them and beleeve them with certainty of faith and upon this formall reason because Jehovah speaketh them in his word no lesse then we are obliged to know and beleeve fundamentals for our dulnesse and blindnes of mind doth not licence us to beleeve what God revealeth to us in his Word with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a fluctuation of mind no more then the naturall man is licenced to beleeve the fundamentals of the Gospel with doubting because they come in under the capacity of his understanding as foolishnesse 1 Cor. 2. 14. But say you upon supposall that our darkened hearts doe not see these non-fundamentals clearely we are obliged to take their meaning and sense with a reserve and so to receive and entertaine the truths of these non-fundamentals as we leave roome upon supposall of our misapprehensions to retract our judgement and to beleeve the contrary of what we once beleeved and this bindereth not but that we are simply and absolutely obliged to beleeve the non-fundamentalls Answ If we be simply and absolutely obliged to beleeve non-fundamentals though they be not so clearely revealed to us as the fundamentals as no doubt we are then doe we contrary to the morall obligation of a divine precept and so sinne in beleeving with a doubting and hesitation of that which God hath revealed in his word and when we beleeve Gods truth with a reserve to retract our judgement when a cleare light shall make naked to us our error that revealed error if revealed to be an error by the Lord speaking in his word doth clearely evince that God never revealed nor meant to reveale in his Word the former truth that was beleeved with a reserve for God cannot reveale things contradictory and out of the mouth of the Lord commeth no untruth therefore God in these non-fundamentals revealeth to us but one thing to be beleeved and that absolutely without all reserves for God can no more shine with a new light to delare the contradicent of what he hath once revealed as truth then he candeny himselfe or lie which to assert were high blasphemy and if the first truth of the non-fundamentall doe onely appeare truth to our understanding and be no such thing but in it selfe an untruth then doth the God of truth reveale no such thing 2. Upon supposall that we see not the truth of these non-fundamentals clearly we are neither to beleeve with a reserve nor to beleeve them absolutely nor yet are we to suspend our beliefe because I conceive all the three to be sinfull and we are never obliged to sinne but we are obliged to know and beleeve simply without all reserve having laid away our darke and confused conscience and are to know clearely and beleeve firmely that God speaketh this not this in his Word nor because I doe fluctuate about the truth of these non-fundamentals am I obliged to follow in non-fundamentals the endictment of a fluctuating conscience seeing holding the plenitude and plenary perfection of Gods Word the Lord hath no lesse manifested his will in setting downe superstructures and non-fundamentals in his Word then he hath revealed his mind to us in fundamentals But our Brethren prove that we may tolerate one another in diverse and contrary opinions about non-fundamentals from Phil. 3. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing yee be otherwise minded God shall reveale this unto you 16. Neverthelesse whereunto we have already attained let us walke by the same rule let us mind the same thing Now there is nothing more opposite to this rule then the practises of some who will exclude and allow communion in nothing where there is difference in anything The labours of Davenant and others in this needfull case of syncretisme and pacification in those times are very seasonable I answer I distinguish three things that may be judged the object of syncretisme or mutuall toleration 1. Fundamentalia fundamentall points 2. Supra circa fundamentalia things that are builded on the foundation or superstructures or things about the foundation as many positive and historicall things that cannot result by good consequence off or from the foundation as that there were eight soules in Noahs Arke and some rituals of Gods institution in the Sacrament of the Supper and Baptisme c. 3. Praeter fundamentalia things meerely physicall not morall having no influence in Gods worship at all as such a day for meeting of an Assembly of the Church Wednesday rather then Thursday a cloake when you pray in private rather then a gowne these have or contribute of themselves no morall influence to the action as in what corner of your Chamber you pray in private these are meerely indifferent and tolerance in these I would commend It is true there is a strict connexion often betwixt the physicall and the morall circumstances so as the physicall circumstance doth put on by some necessity a morall habitude and respect and then the physicall circumstance becommeth morall as in what corner of your Chamber you pray it is meerely physicall and indifferent but if that corner that you pray in cast you obvious to the eyes of those who are walking in the streets that they may see and heare your private prayers then the place putteth on the
every one of the visible Church and that he inteneth to save all and every one of the visible Church This I prove for if thâ— covenant and promises of the covenant if the stiles of Christs Body his Love his Spouse his Sister and Dâ—ve if the revelation of Christ made not by flesh and blood but by Christs Father the ground of that blessed confession of Peter Mat. 16. 17. For which the keys were given to the visible Church if I say all these be proper to the visible Church as visible and due to her as to the first principall and prime subject and not to the chosen redeemed and invisible Church as such then the promises of the covenant and all these styles belong to the visible Church and God promiseth and intendeth a new heart and a new spirit to all visible Professors as such and so he intendeth redemption in Christ and salvation and Christs Righteousnesse and Forgivenesse of sins to all the visible Church But our Brethren do not I hope thinke that Gods intentions are castles in the Aire and new Ilands beyond the Moone as if his intentions could be frustrated and he could misse the white of the scope he shooteth at for certainly these to whom the covenant and promises thereof belong as to the prime and first subject these are his covenanted people now the orthodox and reformed Church holdeth that the covenant and promises are preached to the whole visible Church but for the elects sake and that howsoever externally the covenant of grace and promises be promulgated to every one and all within the lists of the visible Church yet they belong in Gods Intention and gratious purpose only to the Elect of God and his reseemed ones to that invisible Body Spouse Sister whereof Christ alone is Lord Head Husband and Brother and the first begotten amongst many Brethren Hence let me reason thus The Church whose gathering together and whose unity of Faith knowledge of the Son of God and growth of the measure of the stature of the fulnes of Christ the Lord intendeth by giving to them for that end some to be Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4. 11 12 13. must be the Church to which all the promises of the covenant and priviledges do belong But the Lord intendeth the gathering together the unity of Faith the knowledge of the Son of God and growth of the measure of the stature of Christ only of the invisible Elected and Redeemed Church not of the visible professing or consesing Church nor doth the Lord send Pastors and Teachers up-on a purpose and intention of gathering the visible Church and visible Israel except you flie to the Tents of Arminians I conceive these arguments cannot be answered If any say that Christ in giving Prophets Pastors and Teachers to his Church intendeth to save the true visible Church of the chosen and redeemed in so far as they are chosen and redeemed now they who answer thus come to our hand and forsake the Doctrine of their visible Church and say with us that the Ministery and the keys are given only upon a purpose on Gods part to save the invisible Church and that all these promises of the covenant the styles of Christs Spouse Sister Faire one are not proper to the visible Church nor any ground or argument to prove that the keys the power of excommunication ordaining of officers are given to the visible Church as to the prime and principall subject 4. The invisible Church and not the visible Church as it is such hath right to the Sacraments because these who have right to the covenant have right to the seales of the covenant and this is Peters argument to prove the baptizing of Infants to be lawfull Acts 2. 38 39. But only the invisible Church hath right to the covenant For God saith only of and to the invisible Church and not of the visible Church in his gratious purpose Jerem. 32. 38. And I will be their God and they shall be my people Jer. 31. 33. I will put my Law in their inward parts 34. They shall all know me all within the covenant I will forgive thâ—ir iniquity Now the visible Church as the visible Church is not within the covenant therefore the visible Church as the visible Church and being no more but the visible Church hath not right to the Seales of the covenant but in so far as they are within the covenant and in so far as God is their God and they his pardoned and sanctified people as it is Ierem. 31. 33 34. 5. It is knowen that our Brethren here joyne with Papists for Papists ignorant of the Doctrine of the visible Church labour to prove that the visible Church on Earth the Ministeriall Teaching and Governing Church cannot erre but that she converâ—ed in a visible Synod and met in Christs Name hath a promise of an infallible assistance And by what argumunts do they prove it You know here Bellarmine Pererius Tolet Stapleton Bailâ—â—s Suarez Vasquez Harding Gretsirus Costerus Turrecremata Salmoron Locinus Cajetan and an host of them say because the Church is builded on a Rock and against it the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile because Christ saith I have prayd to the Father that thy Faith faile thee not because Christ saith I will send you the holy Spirit and he shall leade you into all truth Now our Divines say that the invisible Church of Elect believers cannot fall off the Rock and cannot fall from saving Faith and cannot erre by falling into fundamentall heresies but it followeth not Ergo the visible ministeriall and Teaching Church either out of a Synod or convened in a Synod have an infallible and Apostolick Spirit to lead them so as in their determinations they cannot erre Just so our brethren take all the places for the priviledges covenant promises stiles of Sister Love Dove Spouse mysticall Body of Christ c. Which are proper only to the invisible redeemed chosen sanctified Church of God and they give all these to their only visible ministeriall and right constituted Church in the New Testament and say that this visible church gathered in a church-state because of the foresaid priviledges and stiles hath the supreame and independent power and authority of the keys above all Teachers and Pastors whatsoever and that the right visible church consisteth only of a Royall generation Temples of the Holy Ghost a people in covenant with God taught of God partakers of the Divine nature c. And that all visible churches that meet not in a materiall House in a visible and conspicious Society as on visible Mount Zion and not consisting of such a covenanted sanctified and separated people are a false church false in matter not an ordinance of Christ but an Idoll an antichristian device a Synagogue of Satan voyd of the power of the Keys 6. A church in covenant with God and the Spouse of Christ and his mysticall Body and a church which
Kingly Priestly and Propheticall office be overturned as we were forced in Popery to do we are to separate from the Church in that case It is not true that Master Robinson saith This distinction of fundamentalls and non-fundamentals in injurious to growing in grace whereas we should be led on to perfection as if it were sufficient for a house that the foundation were laid Answ. It followeth not for the knowledge of fundamentalls is onely that wee may know what is a necessary meane of salvation without which none can be saved notwithstanding he who groweth not and is not led on to perfection never laid hold on the foundation Christ nor are we hence taught to seeke no more but so much knowledge of fundamentals as may bring as to heaven that is an abuse of this Doctrine 2. Robinson faith fundamentall truthes are holden and professed by as vile heretickes as ever were since Christs dayes a company of excommunicates may hold teach and defend fundamentall truths yet are they not a true Church of God Answ. Papists hold fundamentalls and so doe Jewes hold all the old Testament and Papists hold both new and old but we know they so hold fundamentalls that by their doctrine they overturne them and though there bee fundamentalls taught in the Popish Church which may save if they were beleeved yet they are not a true and ministeriall Church simply because though they teach that there is one God they teach also there is a thousand Gods whom they adore and though they teach there is one Mediator yet doe they substitute infinite Mediators with and besides Christ so that the truth is not a formall ministeriall and visible active externall calling is in the Church of Rome as it is a visible Church in the which wee can safely remaine though fundamentalls be safe in Rome and the bookes of the old and new Testament be there yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can sucke for fundamentall points falsely exponed cease to be fundamentall points yea as they be ministerially in Rome they be destructive of the foundation though there bee some ministeriall acts valid in that Church for the which the Church of Rome is called a true Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect according to something essentiall to the true Church yet never sine adjecto as if it were a true Church where we can worship God Fundamentalls are safe in Rome materially in themselves so as some may be saved who beleeve these fundamentalls but fundamentalls are not safe in Rome Ecclesiastice Ministeraliter Pastoraliter in a Church way so as by beleeving these from their chaires so exponed they can be saved who doe beleeve them 2. Out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother whose daughters we are Some say the fundamentalls amongst Lutherans are exponed in such a way as the foundation is everted I answer There is a twofold eversion of the foundation 1. One Theologicall Morall and Ecclesiastick as the doctrine of the Councell of Trent which is in a ministeriall way with professed obstinacy against the fundamentall truths rightly exponed and such an eversion of the foundation maketh the Popish Church no Church truely visible whose breasts we can sucke But for Lutheranes their subversion of the foundation by philosophick consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentalls and that not in an Ecclesiasticke and Ministeriall way doth not so evert the fundamentalls as that they bee no visible Church The learned Pareus sheweth that there be no difference betwixt us and Lutherans in heads absolutely necessary to salvation the dissention is in one point onely anent the Lords Supper not in the whole doctrine thereof but in a part thereof not necessary for salvation There were divisions betweene Paul and Baâ—nabas betwixt Cyprim an African Bishop and Stephanus Bishop of Rome anent baptisme of hereticks which Cyprian rejected as no baptisme betwixt Basilius Magnus and Eusebius Ceâ—ariensis because Basilius stood for the Emperour Vaâ—ns his power in Church matters so was there dissention betwixt Augustine and Hierâ—nimus anent the ceremonies of the Jewes which Hyeronymus thought might be retained to gaine the Jewes so there was also betwixt Epiphanius and Chrysostome anent the bookes of Origâ—n The Orthodox beleevers agreed with the Novations against the Arrians anent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consubstantialitie of Christ and though excommunicate persons defend and hold all fundamentalls sound and so may bee materially a true Church yet because their profession is no profession but adenying of the power of godlinesse they cannot be formally a visible Church but are for scandalls casten out of the visible Church But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first rudiments and foundation of Religion and therefore cannot bee a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remaine in that darknesse are to be cast out But saith he the bare profession of fundamentalls maketh not a Church they must be a company of faithfull people and if they must not be truely faithfull then they must be falsely faithfull for God requireth true and ready obedience in his word according to which wee must define Churches and not according to casuall things Answ. This is a speciall ground that deceiveth the Separatists their ignorance I meane of the visible Church for the visible Church consisteth essentially neither of such as be truely faithfull nor of such as must be falsely faithfull for the ignorant man seeth not that the visible Church includeth neither faith nor unbeliefe in its essence or definition It is true to the end that professors may be members of the invisible Church they must be beleevers must beleeve except they would be condemned eternally but to make them members of the visible Church neither beleeving nor unbeleeving is essentiall but onely a profession ecclesiastically in tear that is not scandalous visibly apparently lewd and flagitious such as was the profession of Simon Magus when he was baptized with the rest of the visible Church Act. 8. And God indeed requireth of us true worship and ready obedience as he saith but not that a visible Church should be defined by true and sincere obedience for essentials onely are taken in a definition and casuall corruptions are only accidentall to Churches and fall out through mens faults and therefore should not be in the definition either of a visible or an invisible Church nor should ready and sincere obedience which is a thing invisible to mens eyes be put in the definition of a visible Church for it is accidentall to a visible Church and nothing invisible can be essentiall to that which essentially is visible the visible Church is essentially visible Anent separation from Rome we hold these Propositions 1. Profession consistetly not onely in a publike ministeriall avowing
us to belief and certainty of faith no lesse then it obliegeth the Pen-men of Scripture and our certainty of saving faith is as infallible as the faith of the Prophets and Apostles except with Papists we say no man can be assured that he is in the state of grace If therefore we be oblieged to beleeve all revealed superstructures though not fundamentall as the Prophets and Apostles were we sinne scandalously when obstinacie is added to ignorance if we beleeve them with such a reserve as is contrary to faith and because there is no ignorance of those who teach others but it is capable of obâ—tinacie and consequently it is capable of Church censure Matth. 18. 17. I grant the weake and unlearned though ignorant of their Christian liberty in that interim and case when many things are indifferent as the case was Rom. 14. though they be instructed by Paul sufficiently that nothing is uncleane and that they erre in that out of an erring consciences light or rather darkenesse they abstain from such and such meates as Gods law hath now made lawfull to both Jew and Gentile yet are they not to be censured nor troubled with thorny disputations but if these weake ones 1. persist in their error and 2. teach it to others and mislead them they knowing that they beleeve these errors with a reserve are as I conceive false teachers and censurable by the Church and State and not weake but obstinate 2. We are not to be dull of hearing but are to be fully instructed und certainly perswaded so of superstructures which are not the first principles of the Oracles of God as that we are to teach others Ergo a Pyrrbonian fluctuation in these is damnable How then can it be a principle next to Gods word most to bee followed not to make our present judgement and practise in matters not fundamentall a binding Law to us for the future 2. The Apostle ought not to rebuke them for being dull of hearing of those things whereof either sides may be beleeved in a necessary case of syncretisme and pacification without any hazard of punishment or Church-censures for what is a necessary principle and to be holden and enacted as the most sacred Law of all others next unto the Word of God the matter of that principle being unknowne and neither sides understood received or beleeved cannot put on any the rebuke of dull hearing For example if the point of Presbyteriall government of the Church or of independencie of single congregations be a point not to be received with such certainty of faith and assurance but we are to reject either or both when we shall receive new light that they are false and contrary to the rule of holy Scripture and againe if we are to reject the opinion contradicent to these former points of Presbyteriall government and independent congregations for there is by this opinion the same reason of the contradicent as of the formerly affirmed opinions I see not how I may not be dull of hearing yea how I may not simply be ignorant of both and not sinne against God 3. Those superstructures which are not fundamentall are the strong persons food as the knowledge of principles fundamentall is the food of babes vers 12 13. Then I must be perswaded of the truth of them else they cannot feed my soule with knowledge because knowledge of Pyrrhonian fluctuation which is conjecturall and may be no lesse false then true and which I must so beleeve for truth as possible the tyde of a contrary light may carry me to beleeve the just contrary as truth can never be the strong food of such as are skilled in the word of righteousnesse 4. The knowledge of these superstructures or non-fundamentals belongeth to those who are of full age and have their senses exercised to discerne both good and ill vers 14. and which are carried on to perfection c. 6. v. 1. having now left the fundamentals as food to babes and unskilled c. 5. v. 12. But I heartily crave to learn what perfection doewe arive unto and what encrease of fuller age what experience of more spirituall knowledge perfecting the spirituall senses doe I attaine to know certaine truths which to me may be no lesse rotten conclusions and meere forgeries of mens braines then divine truths Hence if this Arminian liberty of prophecying and this perpetuall fluctuation of men alwayes learning and never comming to the knowledge of the truth be contrary to growing in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 3. 18. and contrary to that which is called 1 Cor. 1. 5. all knowledge and to the abundance of knowledge which in the last dayes is to fill the earth as the sea is filled with waters so that when I have once over-sailed that point of the coast of the knowledge of fundamentall articles I am now in a Sea of foure contrary winds and foure contrary tydes at once and I know nothing for truth but its contradicent may be yea and to me is as true I say if this fluctuation of knowledge be contrary to growing in knowledge it must be rejected as a Chimera and the dreame of mens heads 5. Let us take one point not fundamentall to wit this Every congregation hath absolute power of Church government within it selfe without subjection to Classes Presbyteries and Synods You are so perswaded of the truth of this that your present judgement and practice is no binding Law to you for the morrow but you leave roome in your judgement to beleeve to morrow the contradicent when new light shall appeare Well then to morrow this non-fundamentall and this contradicent is now to you true No congregation hath absolute power of Church-government within it selfe but hath its power in dependance upon and with subjection unto Classes Presbyteries and Synods Well to morrow is come and this you beleeve now to be Gods truth yet so as your present judgement and practice is no binding Law to you for the second morrow but you leave roome for light which shall appeare the second morrow well in the second morrow new light appeareth and convinceth you that the contradicent is true and you recurre in a circle to beleeve your first proposition againe is true to wit the contradicent of your second dayes proposition and now to you this is true as it was once Every congregation hath absolute power of Church-government within it selfe without subjection to classes Presbyteries and Synods Now on the third morrow a new light appearing you are to beleeve the contradicent and because all circular motions are in credit to be deemed eternall and your mind is alwayes obliged to stoop and fall downe before new light and the conscience is to render her selfe captive to every emergent truth what can you here say but there is no end of fluctuations and doubtings But you say Gods spirit the revealer of all truth doth not fluctuate though I change God Jebovah
our opinions learned and holy men yea and whole Churches may looke beside their booke and be deceived and these we take not to be the subject of a sworne confession of faith and here we grant a non liquet on both sides and doe allow some graine weights of reserve to persons and Churches to retract in those things but hence it is badly concluded that we beleeve these non-fundamentals of discipline for which we have certainty of evidence from Gods Word with a reserve and with a loosnesse of assent and credulity to beleeve the contrary to morrow for so the same argument should militate against the certainty of faith in some fundamentals for a person yea any particular Church may erre in denying the resurrection of the dead as some did in the Church of Corinth and Christs Disciples though true beleevers doubted of his rising from the dead John 20. 9. Peter and the disciples doubted of Christ dying for the losed world Mat. 16. 21 22. Luke 24. 25 26. and because any true beleever may fall in that temptation and weaknesse as to deny all the articles of faith taken divisively for they may deny this or this article fundamentall though I doe not thinke a regenerated person can deny the whole systeme and body of fundamentals collectively it shall follow by this argument that regenerated persons and particular Churches are to beleeve some fundamentals with a reserve and keeping roome for light to beleeve the contrary and so if this argument be good wee have no certainty of faith in beleeving any one fundamentall article its alone Nor can Nathan or Samuel have certainty of faith in beleeving their owne prophecies flowing from the immediate inspiration of the Spirit but they are to beleeve them with a capacity to receive the faith of the contradicent prophecies because Nathan had no certainty of faith in commanding David to build the Temple and Samuel had as little certainty in pronouncing Eliah to be the Lords annoynted Another doubt against this is That if any out of weaknesse and meere tendernesse of conscience deny some superstructures which are indeed scripturall truths they are not to be counted hereticks because out of weaknesse not out of obstinacy they erre nor to be censured with excommunication or censures of Church or Magistrate and therefore in these we are to beleeve truths with a reserve and to tolerate the contrary minded if they agree with us in fundamentals Answ. That this may be answered 1. The object of these opinions would be distinguished 2. The persons weak or strong 3. The manner of refusing instruction or of admitting light of meere weaknesse or of obstinacy For the first if the matter be faultlesse or light as eating meats or not eating meats in time when they are meerely indifferent and the person weake and scarce capable of disputation he is to be tolerated and not received into knotty and thorny disputations about things indifferent for so Paul Rom. 14. is to be understood when he will not have the weake taken in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Michael strove with the Angel disputing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the matter concerne an institution of Christ and our necessary practise in a Church and the party be not weake It is a question what maketh obstinacy and what tendernesse and weaknesse Turrecremata saith he who is ready to yeeld to light is not obstinate Scotus grosse ignorance Canus saith affected ignorance maketh obstinacie Malderus saith that grosse ignorance may leave a man ready to yeeld to the information of the Church Alphonsus a Castro saith better he is obstinate who 1. defendeth an opinion against the Scripture or saith he which is his error against the definition of a generall Councell or of the Pope 2. Who being admonished doth not amend 3. Who seeketh not resolution from the learned with a purpose to render himselfe truths captive 4. Who sweareth that he shall adhere to the end to that opinion By the light and knowledge of the holder of the opinion it may be collected whether he seeketh truth and is ready to yeeld himselfe and his understanding thereunto and except the point be fundamentall it can hardly be judged heresie if the point may be holden without any scandall or breach of peace much tolerance is required where error seemeth to be a temptation to holy men but finall tolerance and unlimitted where the party is of great knowledge and hath sway in the minds of many to prevaile to draw others after him is harder Object But hee that serveth God in these is acceptable to God Rom. 14. 18. and if a man judge some doctrine to bee error though it bee no error yet to him that so judgeth it is error if hee suffer death for that hee judgeth truth hee suffereth for righteousnesse being truth in his judgement and therefore libertie of conscience is to bee given to all sects Christ would not forbid a man that preached in his name to preach though hee did not follow him Mark 9. 38. Luk. 9. 50. The best way to hinder Sects is to reâ—ute them by the Scriptures and not to set decrees of Synods to others because that is done already by Christ and his Apostles for Gods judgement shall still bee on you while you establish Christs Jubilee and freedome of consciences Luke 4. 18. Answ. Let none thinke that these bee the words of our brethren but of a certaine Anabaptist and of Arminians and Socinians who object the same for Paul Rom. 14. 18. hee that serveth God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bee understood as the context teacheth us that is that they relate the words going before v. 17. hee who serveth God in righteousnesse in peace in joy of the holy Ghost the meaning is not that hee is acceptable who serveth God in following the inditement of his light and conscience because it is his conscience for then some should please God in sinning against God But it is a point worthy our consideration what tie and obligation an erroneous conscience layeth on men hence with correction these considerations 1. The true cause why an erring conscience obliegeth to abstinence from the fact in the case of error and misrepresentation of conscience is 1. Because conscience is the nearest divine principle of our morall actions and standeth in the roome of God and therefore hee who doth any thing against the very erroneous ditement of conscience is hence convinced to have a perverse will to sinne against the majestie of God because hee who should beleeve usury to bee theft though we should suppose with Calvin and other great Divines usurie to bee in some cases lawfull should yet take usury hath a theâ—teous will in that and doth steale 2. Because the oblieging Law of God is not applyed to our actions at all but by the interveening actuall use of our conscience see Pirerius 2. Consideration In the question whether an erroneous conscience doth obliege
a man or no. It is taken for a thing out of controversie yea that this is no question at all Whether or no doth an erroneous conscience so bind that we can doe nothing against the standing enditement of an erring conscience for the Scripture is cleare in this Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing of meat-kind now under the Gospel uncleane or unlawfull to eat of it selfe but to him that esteemeth any thing to bee uncleane in the light of his il-informed and erroneous conscience to him so thinking it is uncleane that is to this man now under the actuall darknesse and errour of an ill-informed conscience it is not lawfull to eat but hee must abstaine from eating not simply from eating but from eating â—â—li modo So all who have commented on the place Calvin Beza Parâ—us Rollocus c. and of the Fathers all who either commented on or handled the text occasionally as Theodoret Chrysostome Basilius Augustine Cyprian Ambrose Origen Anselm all the Popish writers Lyra Hugo Cardinalis Aquinas Toletus Pirerius Estius Cornelius a Lapide c. yea Adrianus Vasquez Pezantius say it is manifestly against the Scripture and hereticall to say it is no sinne to doe contrary to the commandement or prohibition of an erring conscience 3. Hence the conscience carrieth to the agent from God a twofold obligation most considerable here 1. one from the action it selfe to be done or not done and this commeth wholly from the oblieging Law of God and not from the conscience there is another obligation that consisteth not in the action and commeth not from the action but in the manner of doing and this obligation commeth from conscience it selfe and that is that we doe nothing in such a manner that is against the light or inditement of our conscience for this is an imbred Rose Flower of divinifie and majestie that groweth kindly out of conscience according to that high place of some sort of royaltie that it hath to bee something of God a little breast-God a little Deputie and Judge not to bee contemned so when a proconsull bringeth to mee a forged commandement from my Soveraigne and Prince I may receive it with non-obedience if I know it to bee a forgery but I am not to despise and put any note of disgrace upon the proconsull be cause hee is in respect of his office the deputie of my Soveraigne though in this particular mandat hee doth prevaricate and not represent the soveraigne power and Prince whose deputie otherwayes he is by vertue of his office so is this the deputed royaltie of conscience that it standing to me bic nunc as representing a message from God though it represent it falsely that I can doe nothing in the contrary that deputry and message standing actually in vigor 4. I desire that these two obligations of conscience bee carefully kept in mind hence I say that conscience carrying the former obligation of Gods Law from which formally the action hath its lawfulnesse and in an eccentrick and irregular discrepance from which it hath its unlawfulnesse it doth not obliege mee to the action because it is conscience simply for when it offereth an action to mee as lawfull which in very deed and a parte rei in it selfe is unlawfull I am not oblieged to that unlawfull action for as God hath given to no ruler made of clay any royall power to bee a tyrant and to destroy where as his office is as a father to save and governe so hath not God given to conscience any power to obliege me to sinnes yea and conscience remaineth conscience when it representeth forged and illegall mandates under the notion of things good even when men love to goe to hell by reason yet in that false representation conscience is not Gods deputie therefore though if a man judge some doctrines to bee errors though they bee in themselves truths to him that so judgeth they are errors yet are these truths not to bee rejected simpliciter and absolutely by him who judgeth so ony they are to be rejected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect as they come in under the notion and garments of errors also if any suffer death for an error which in conscience he conceiveth to be truth that error is to him truth Distinguo it is to him truth that is he conceiveth and dreameth that it is truth that is most true but to him it is truth that is it ought to bee beleeved by him as truth and practised as lawfull that is most false for it ought to bee rejected both in point of beleefe and in point of practise and the erroneous opinion thereof should bee rejected and therefore if hee receive it as truth and professe it and die for it hee dieth not for righteousnesse sake but hee dieth for errour and for the dreames of his owne head and so is not blessed as one who dveth for righteousnesse for this vaine reason saith 1. that it is no sinne for the mind to beleeve a lie to bee a divine truth and it is righteousnesse upon the beleefe whereby I beleeve a lie to bee a truth to suffer for a lie under the notion of a truth Both these are false the former is false for the mind is under Gods oblieging Law to conceive aright of all divine truths as all the faculties of the soule are under a Law 2. The latter is false for to beleeve lies as divine truths and suffer for them because the erring conscience saith they are divine truths is not righteousnesse but sinfull credulity and blind zeale 1. Because wee are not to beleeve what our conscience dictateth as truth under this formall reduplication because our conscience thus doth dictate and saith it is truth but because Gods spirit saith to our conscience it is a divine truth not because our owne spirit and our owne dreaming and misâ—ed conscience saith so This is the controversie betwixt us and Papists anent the authoritie of Gods Word but with a little change for our conscience or the testimony of our conscience as such is no more the formall object of our faith and the formall medium and reason why with a divine faith I beleeve a divine truth to bee a divine truth then the testimony of the Church or the Pope is the formall reason of my faith so An â—baptists make a Pope and an infallible spirit of their owne conscience but the whole formall obligation tying mee to receive this and this point as a divine truth is because God hath revealed it in his Word the consciences representing of it is but a necessary condition of my beleeving but not the formall object of my beleeving the conscience is the cause why I beleeve it tali modo after a rationall way and by the evidence of practicall reason but it is not the formall cause why I beleeve it simpliciter for Papists Arrians Macedonians and the most
Distinct. There is a confession which containeth fundamentalls only the knowledge whereof is simply necessary for salvation and the simple ignorance whereof condemneth There is a confession which containeth fundamentalls and non fundamentalls which are not simplie necessary to be knowen by all necessitate â—â—edii 3. Dist. A confession of faith is to be respected in regard of the matter which is Divine Scripture or according to the stile conception and inâ—erpretation which is in some respect humane 4. Distinct. There is a confession of a particular man what such a person or Church believeth de facto as the confession of â—â—e Belgick Arminians and a confession de jure what every one ought to believe as the Nicen Creed the Creed of â—thanasiâ—s 5. Dist. There is a confession of a faith firme and sure quoad â—ertitudinem fidei quoad substantiam articulorum credendoâ—um sure in the Articles believed and a confession sure quoad radicationem fidei in subjecto the first way all are obliged â—â— believe the Articles contained in the word But we see not how now after the Canon of Scripture is closed but the certainty of faith according to the measure of light more or lesse as our Lord more or lesse doth reveale himselfe in a more or lesse measure of ligh doth not grow woâ— or decrease according to the certainy of faith the second way hence we say 1. Conclusion Onely the Word of God is the principall and formall ground of our Faith Eph. 2. 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Luk. 14. 25. 2. Concl. A confession of Faith containing all fundamentall points is so farre forth the Word of God as it agreeth with the Word of God and obligeth as a rule secundary which wee believe with subjection to God speaking in his owne Word and to this plat-forme wee may lawfullly sweare 1. What ever wee are obliged to believe and professe as the saving truth of God that we may lawfully sweare to professe believe and practise that the bond of faith may be sure but wee are obliged to believe and professe the nationall confession of a sound Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from Davids and the Saints practise who layed bands on their soules to tie themselves to that which is lawfull as Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will performe it that I will keep thy Righteous judgements The major is the doctrine of our Dvines and cleare when they explaine the matter of a lawfull Oath as Pareus Bucanus Tilenus Profess Leydens Calvin Iunius Beza Piscator Zanchiâ— c. That things lawfull may lawfully be sworne to GOD observing other due circumstances The assumption is â—â—deniable 2. Arg. That whereof we are assured in conscience to be the truth and true Religion bringing salvation to mens soules to that we may tie our selves by an Oath upon the former grounds But the sound confession of faith set downe in a platformâ— is such as we may and are to be assured of in conscience â— the truth of God Ergo The assumption is proved because what is Gods Word and truth of that we are to be assured of iâ— conscience as Col. 2. 7. Being knit together in love unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding and Heb. 6. 11. should keepe the full assurance of hope to the end Col. 2. 2 3. Eph. 4. 14. 3. If the people of the lewes did sweare a covenant with God to keep the words of the covenant to doe them Deut. 29. 9. 10 11. To seeke the Lord God of Israel with all their heart and with all their soule 2 Chron. 15. 12. and if they entered into a curse and an oath to walke in the Lords law which was given by Moses the servant of God to observe and doe all the Commandements of the Lord and subscribed and sealed the covenant with their hands Nehem. 10. 1. v. 29. Then is it lawfull for a Church to sweare and by oath subscribe an Orthodox confession But the former is true as the places alledged cleare Ergo so is the latter That which onely may be doubted of is the connexion of the major proposition because Israel did sweare to nothing but to Moses written Law which in matter and forme was Gods expresse written word but it will not follow that we may sweare a plat-forme of Divine truth framed and penned by men but the connexion notwithstanding of this remaineth sure because Israel did sweare the Lords covenant according to the true meaning and intent of the Holy Ghost as it is Gods Word and we also sweare a Nationall covenant not as it is mans word or because the Church or Doctors at the Churches direction have set it down in such and such words such an order or method but because it is Gods Word so that we sweare to the sense and meaning of the platforme of confession as to the Word of God now the Word of God and sense and meaning of the Word is all one Gods Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two different things When a Jew sweareth to the doctrine and covenant of God in the Old Testament in a Jewish meaning he sweareth not to the Word of God because the Word of God unsoundly expounded is not the Word of God and though the Sadducees and Pharisees sweare the five bookes of Moses and the very covenant which Asah and the Kingdome of Iudâ—h did sweare 2 Chron. 15. yet doe they not sweare the covenant of God and that same which Gods people did sweare 2 Chron. 15. Or if any professing they worship idols should sweare that covenant alledging the covenant doth not forbid idols to be memorials and objects by which absolute adoration is given to God we would not thinke that they had sworne the covenant of God but onely words of God falsely expounded yea and made to be not Gods Word but a plaine lying invention Therefore it is all one whether a Church sweare a confession in expresse words of Scripture or a covenant in other words expounding the Scriptures true meaning and sense according to the language and proper idiom of the Nation and Church for we sweare not words or a platforme as it is such but the matter sense and meaning of the Scriptures of God set downe in that platforme and it is certaine in Nehemiahs time there was some platforme either the writings of Moses or some sound exposition thereof else I see not how they could seale it Nehem. 9. 38. And because of all this we make a sure covenant and write it and our Princes Levites and Priests seale unto it Now that which was written could not but be a platforme either in Scripture onely according to the meaning of the exacters of the oath or some interpretation else every man writ his owne covenant and sealed it which is not like for they all joyntly sware this covenant and the reason of this written sworne and sealed covenant being morall as is cleare
Persis oriens India omnes Barbarae nationes uâ—um Christum adorant unam observant regulam veritatis What were all these but such as after were called VValdenses And in the first ages Pius 2. saith ante concilium Nicenuâ—â— parvus respectus babitus fuerat ad Romanam ecclesiars before the Nicen councill little respect was â—ad to th Church of Rome See this learnedly Demonstrated by the learned Voetius and his reason is good Ignatius Ireneus Iustin. Martyr Clâ—m Alexandr Tertullian Cyprian speak not one syllable of popery or popish articles also Lucian Porphyrius Trypheâ— Cellus Sosymus Symmachus Iulian mockers of Reiligon would have spoken against transubstantiation one body in many thousand places worshipping of dead bones the worshipping of a Tree Crosse and dumbe images and bread a Pope who could not erre and they would have challenged and examined miracles and I adde if they scoffed at the Doctrine of these called after VValdenses as the confession beareth then were the Church of Waldenses though not under that name in their time The Jewes objected against the Fathers Tatian Theophilus Athenages Iustin Tertullian Alexand. Cyâ—rian Chrysostome Isiodorus Hispalensis Iulianus Poâ—nerius They objected all they could devise against the Christian Faith but not a word of poynts of popery now controversed Ergo popery hath not beene in the World then an 188. In the Time of Victor many opposed victors Tyranny and as Plessaeus and Doctor Molineus saith were called Schismaticks therefore and excommunicated Neither can Gretserus nor Bellarmine defend this but by lies and raylings Yea from the 4. to the 7. age saith Voetius produce one Martyr professor or Doctor See Augustine de side ad Petrum Ruffinus his exposition of the Creed Gâ—nnadius of the Articles of the Church Theodoret his Epitome Divinorum decretorum Cyrillus his tract de fide and produce one holding the popish Faith Clemens Romanus and Elutheriâ—s in the Epistle to the Bishops of France maketh all Bishops pastors of the Church universall Any who readeth Greâ—serus against Plâ—ssie may see in the 4. age that Baronius and Bellarmine cannot desend that appeale was made to the Pope in the councell of Carthage yea the Popes Legate brought Apiarius to the Councell that his cause might be judged there becausâ— the Pope could not judge it and that the Councell of Chalcedon was per precepta Valentiniani convened and that Canstantinople was equall with Rome That Simplicius Gâ—lasius and Symmachus were Judges in their owne cause and that Hormisda an 518. had no command over the Oâ—ientall Churches as may be seene in Baronius So Pelagius the 1. Ioan. the 3. and Pelagius the 2. were refused the honour of universall Bishops and could not helpe the matter See Gretser and Honorius must be defended as not denying two wills and two natures in Christ. See what saith Bâ—ronius of this The councell of Constantinople would not receive the worshipping of Images The best part of the Western Churches were against it The Churches of France Germany Italy Brittaine The councell of franckford of Paris so did they all refuse the power of the Pope So Occam Gerson Scotus in most poynts were not papists Nor Cajetan Contaren Almâ—in Ioa Major Caranza Therefore said Thuanus the Doctrine of the VValdenses were now and then renewed by 〈◊〉 and Hus and when Hildebrand came in all know what wicked new poynts hee brought in as in the Tomes of the councells may bee seene and Onuphrius sayth quod major pars antea parum in usu fuerit The greatest part of his novelty not heard before or little in use His Tyranny upon the consciences of Church-men forbidding marriage and over the Lords people may be seene in Sleidan In Lampadius and his forme of excommunicating the Emperour as it is written by Beruriedenses and Sigonius also Aventinus Gerochus Reicher spergeâ—sis Orthuinus Gratius and others can tell But ere I speake of this monster head I should not have omitted humble Stephanus the 5. To whom Lodovick the Emperour descending from his Horse fell down upon the Earth thrice before his feete and at the third time saluted him thus blessed be the Lord God who commeth in the Name of the Lord and who hath shined upon us As Theganus saith that Pashalis excuseth himselfe to the Emperour Lod. That hee had leapen to the Popedome without his authority which saith this headship is not supreame as Aimoinus saith who was a murderer of Theodorus The Roman Churches Seale-keeper and of Leâ— for having first put out their Eyes hee then beheaded them say the same Aimoinus Gregory the 4. caused Lodovick the Emperours sons to conspire against the Father and was upon that plot himselfe Sergius the 2. made an act that a Bishop should be convinced of no fault but under sevety and two witnesses Siconulphus a Prince desiring to have this Popes blessing came to Rome and kissed sayth Gretserus after Anastasius his precious feete Anguilbert Archiepisc. Mediolanensis departed out of the Roman Church for the pride of Rome and Simon of Sergius sayth Sigonius It was ordinary for all sayth Anastasius to kisse the seate of Leo the 4. Platina saith hee was guilty of a conspiracy against Gratianus a godly and worthy man to expell the French-men out of the Kingdome and bring in the Grecianeâ— Gretser the Jesuite saith their owne Platina is a Lyer in this Wee all know there was an English Woman-Pope called Ioanna betwixt Leo the 4. and Benedictus the 3. Bellarmine Baronius Gretser Lipsius will have it a fable Platina a popish writter is more to be believed then they all for hee affirmeth it as truth A great schisme arose in the Church because Benedictus the 3. was chosen Pope without the Emperours consent The Emperour did hold the bridle and lead the Horse of Nicolaus the 1. Gretser cannot deny this hee defended and maintained Baldvinus who was excommunicated by the Bishops of France because he ravished Iuditha the daughter of Câ—rolus Calvus Hee pleaded that there was no reason but the decretalls of the popes should be received as the Word of God but because they were not written in the bookes of Church-Canons for by that reason some bookes of the old and New Testament are not to be received as Gods Word Grets said these Epistles were equall with Gods Word and said they had neither these Epistles nor the Scriptutes authority from the holy Spirit but from the Church That the church was foure hundred yeeres ignorant of the authority of the Scriptures that hee himselfe was Jehova eternall and that Gratianus had inserted it in his distinct 96. That hee was God Adrian the 2. approved of Basilius his killing of Michael the Emperour his Father Onuphrius who observeth 26. Schisms of antipopes thinketh Schismatick Popes no popes as Benedict 5. and
God that persons notoriously wicked should be admitted into the Church then should God directly crosse himselfe and his owne ends and should receive into the visible covenant of grace such as were out of the visible estate of grace and should plant such in his Church for the glory of his Name as served for no other use then to cause his Name to be blasphemed Answ. This argument proveth that the visible Church is not a visible Church except it consist of onely holy and gratious persons without any mixture and so not only holinesse in profession but holinesse reall and before God is required essentially to a visible Church Then Pastors Doctors and Professors binding and loosing clave non errante are not a visible Church Yea this is downe right Anabaptisme that no visible Churches are on Earth but such as consist of reall Saints only 2. It is most ignorantly reasoned that God in creating Man and Angells good did not intend that they should fall by his permission but that they should continue holy and then God was frustrated of his end as Arminians and Socinians Teach So sayth Arminius Antiperk Corvinus The Remonstrants at Dort and Socinus that God intendeth and purposeth many things which never come to passe 2. His Decrees faile and are changed 3. Men may make Gods Decrees of election fast and sure or loose and unsure as they please 3. Here is much ignorance that God intendeth nothing that may be against the glory of obedience due to him as Law-giver as if sinners and hypocrites being in the Church because they are dishonorable to God should crosse Gods end and purpose so Tertullian bringeth in some whom he calleth dogges thus reasoning against providence which suffereth sinne to be in the World so contrary to his Will and goodnesse And who denieth but Christ commanded Judas to preach and that the Apostles according to Gods Will and Cammandement received Ananias Saphira Simon Magus in the visible Church by baptizing them for I hope the Apostles sinned not against Gods revealed Will in admitting them to the visible Church And shall we say that God directly in that crosseth himselfe and his own ends because God gathered hypocrites into his Churcch and yet they dishonour and blaspheme the Name of God Whiles Robinson saith Gods maine end in gathering a visible Church is that they being separated from the World may glorifie his Name he speaketh grosse Arminianisme that God faileth in his ends Lastly he saith that God cannot will that persons notoriously wicked should be in his visible Church for then he should crosse himselfe and his owne ends advert notoriously is vainely added seeing we teach that notoriously wicked ought to be cast out of the visible Church as also if he shall will wicked persons let alone notoriously wicked or latent hypocrites to be in the Church yea or in this visible World he should by this Arminian argument crosse himselfe and his owne ends Do you believe with Arminians that Gods end is that Angells and men should have stood in obedience and that a Redeemer should never come to save sinners And that blasphemy and sinne is against Gods purpose and intended end and that sinne crosseth him but when all is done it is his intention and revealed will that hypocrites be invited to the visible and preached covenant and yet he knoweth that they are out of the visible yea and invisible state of grace Robinson In planting the first Church in the seed of the woman there were only Saints without any mixture now all Churches are of one nature and essentiall constitution and the first is the rule of the rest Answ. Though God planted Adam and Eve two restored persons to be the first repenting Church from Gods fact you cannot conclude a visible Church gathered by men should be voyd of all mixture so as it is no visible Church if it be a mixed company of good and bad this is contrary to his owne commandement Mat. 22 9. Go and call as many as you finde 2. Gods acts are not rules of morall duties his Word and Commandement doth regulate us not his Works God hardeneth Pharaos heart should Pharao harden for that his owne heart God forbid Robinson Cajan that evill on was broken off and cast out of the Church and by Moses it is imputed for sin that the sonnes of God married with the daughters of men Ergo it is far more unlawful to contract with the wicked in a religious covenant of the communion of Saints Answ. Wee grant such as Cain are to be excommunicated but what then Ergo none can be members of a visible Congregation but such as Abel we love not such consequences a Though God forbade his people to marry with the Canaanites yet he forbade not that the Godly and ungodly should come to the Temple together and that Noah and cursed Cham should be in one Arke together 3. Though it be a sinne that the wicked should mix themselves with the godly and come unto the Kings supper without the wedding garment yet that is not the question but if the pastors inviting all to come to the supper do sin and 2. If the Church be not a true visible Church though it consist of good and bad Robinson Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Gen. 17. 10. Rom. 4. 11. Now to affirme that the Lord will seale up with the visible seale of Faith any visibly unrighteous and faithlesse person were that God should prophane his own Ordinance Answ. God doth by this argument profane his owne seale when a visibly wicked person is sealed with the seale as when one visibly unrighteous is sealed for the latent hypocrite profaneth the seale of Righteousnesse as the open and visibly unrighteous and faithlesse person doth Yet it is Gods command that the latent hypocrite have the seales of Righteousnesse since the Church conceiveth him to be a sound professor Ergo by your Doctrine God commandeth to prophane his owne seales but this is the wicked reasoning of Arminians and Socinians So Arminians against Perkins Corvinus against Molinâ—us the Arminians at the synod of Dort would prove an universall grace accompanying the Word and Sacraments and they say that Sacraments doe not seale remission of sins redemption in Christ and that they be empty and toome ordinances yea and mocking signes except all who receive the seales both elect and reproâ—ate be redeemed in Christ and have grace to believe But the truth is God doth not prophane his owne seales because he commandeth that they be received with Faith and let us see where any male child reprobate or elect borne amongst the Iewes but he is by Gods Commandement to be circumcised yet that seale was an empty ordinance to thousands in Israel 3. Nor is the seale a seale of righteousnesse actu secundo sed actu primo it is a seale of righteousnesse as the Word of God is the power of
his brother and therefore we doubt not but the Church hath jus law to excommunicate the Apostles in case of obstinacie and would have used this power iâ— Judas had lived now when the power of excommunication was in vigor but wee say withall de facto the suâ—position was unpossible in respect that continued and habituall obstinacie and flagitious and atâ—ocious scandals deserving excommunication were inconsistent with that measure of the holy Spirit bestowed upon those Catholick Organs and vessels of mercy but this exempteth the Apostles from act all excommunication de facto but is our brethren exâ—â—pt them a jure from the Law they transforme the Apostles into Popes above all Law which wee cannot doe Apostolick eminencie doth 〈…〉 neither Peter nor Paul to bee above either the 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 Law or the positive Lawes gi 〈…〉 One doth wittily say on these 〈…〉 Matth. 8. 15. The Pope is either a 〈…〉 if hee bee a brother offending 〈…〉 complaine of him to the Church 〈…〉 bee no brother there 's an end 〈…〉 his father and never after this 〈…〉 〈…〉 in a Synod as Apostles doth not 〈…〉 in Apostolick acts could not use Sy 〈…〉 others 1. Because Daniel 9. 2. 〈…〉 understood by books the num 〈…〉 Lord came to Jeremiah the 〈…〉 Paul 1 Cor. 1. 1. and Timothi 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 1 Thess. 1. 1. and 3. The 〈…〉 and yet â— ophâ—ts and Apostles were immedi 〈…〉 which they â—â—ote and spake Answ. 1. Daniel â—â—d the Prophecie of Jeremiah and the Pro 〈◊〉 the books of Moses and the Apostles read the old Testament 〈◊〉 and Paul read â—eathen Poets and citeth them Act. 17. 〈◊〉 Tiâ— 1. 12. and maketh them Scripture 2. But the question is now if as Prophets and immediatly inâ—â—â— Prophets and Apostles they did so consult with Scripture which they reade as they made any thing canoniâ—k Scripture upon 〈◊〉 medium and formall reason because they did read it 〈◊〉 it out of bookes and not because the immediate iâ—â—piration of the holy Ghost taught them what they should 〈◊〉 canonick Scripture Suppone a sentence of a â—eathen 〈◊〉 suppone this that Paul left his cloake at Troâ—s not the â—â—â—wledge of sense not naturall reason not experience none â—â— these can bee a formall medium a formall meane to make scripture but as thus saith Jehovah in his word is the formall reason why the Church beleeveth the Scripture to be the Word â—â— God so the formall reason that maketh Prophets and Apostles to put downe any truth as that which is formally canonicall scripture whether it bee a supernaturall truth as the 〈◊〉 was made flesh or a morall truth as Children obey your 〈◊〉 or a naturall truth as The Oxe knoweth his owner or an experienced truth as make not friendship with an angry 〈◊〉 a truth of heathen moralitie as mee are the off-spring of God or a truth of sense Paul lest his cloâ—ke at Tâ—oas I say the 〈◊〉 formall reason that maketh it divine and Scripturall truth is the immediate inspiration of God therefore though 〈◊〉 learned by bookes that the captivitie should indure seventi yeares yet his light by reading made it not formally Scripture but Daniels putting it in the Canon by the immediat actiâ—r impulsion and inspiration of the holy Spirit and though Matthew did read in Esaiah A Virgin shall conceive and beared Sonne yet Matthew maketh it not a part of the New Testament because Esaiah said it but because the holy Ghost did imdiatly suggest it to him as a divine truth for a holy man might draw out of the Old and New Testament a Chapter of orthodox truths all in Scripture words and beleeve them to bee Gods truth yet that Chapter should not formally bee the Scriptur of God because though the Author did write it by the light of faith yet the Propheticall and Apostolicall spirit did not suggest it and inspire it to the author I know some Schoolâ— Papists have a distinction here They say there bee some sepernaturall truths in Scriptures as predictions of things that tall out by the mediation of contingent causes and the supernaturall mysteries of the Gospell as that Achab shall bee killed in the wars the Messiah shall bee borne c. Christ came to 〈◊〉 sinners and those were written by the immediatly inspiring Spirit others were but historicall and naturall truths of fact as that Paul wrought miracles that hee left his cleake at Troas and these latter are written by an inferior spirit the assisting not the immediatly inspiring Spirit and by this latter spirit say they much of Scripture was written and from this assisting Spirit commeth the traditions of the Church say they and the decrees of Popes and councells and this holy Spirit though infallible may and doth use disputation consultations councells of Doctors reading but wee answer that what counsells determin by an assisting spirit is not Scripture nor yet â—m-ply infallible nor doth Daniel advise with Jeremialis writing what hee shall put downe as Scripture nor Paul with Sosâ—hâ—â—â—â— with Timothy and Silvamus what hee shall write as Canonick Scripture in his Epistles for then as the decrees of the coun 〈◊〉 at Jerusalem are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders and this decree which commeth from the Apostles and Elders assemâ—led with one accord and speaking with joynt suffrages from the holy Ghost v. 7 8 9 10 c. v. 28. as collaterall authors of the decree is the conclusion of Apostles and Elders so also should the prophâ—cie of Daniel at least the first two verses of the ninth chapter bee a part of Daniel and a part of Jeremiâ—hs prophecie and Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians should bee the Epistle of Paul and Sâ—stheâ—es and his Epistles to the Colossians and Thessahâ—ianâ— the Epistles of Paul of Timothy of Silvanus whereas Sosthenes Timothy Silvanus were not immediatly inspired collaterall writers of these Epistles with Paul but onely joyners with him in the salutation The erring and scandalous Churches are in a hard condition if they cannot bee edified by the power of jurisdiction in presbyteries Object But it never or seldome in a century falleth out that a Church is to bee excommunicated and Christ hath provided Lawes for things onely that fall out ordinarily Answ. It is true wee see not how an whole Church can bee formally convented accused excommunicated as one or two brethren may bee in respect all are seldome or never deserted of God to fall into an atrocious scandall and wilful obstinacie yet this freeth them not from the Law as suppose in a Congregation of a thousand if five hundreth bee involved in libertinisme are they freed because they are a multitude from Christs Law or from some positive punishment by analogie answering to excommunication 2. The Eldership of a Congregation being three onely doth not seldome scandalously offend and are they under no power under heaven The people may withdraw from them saith the Synod of New England what then so may I withdraw
nor natures light doth warrant us to unjust appeales or to any thing against equitie and reason but that supremacy of power should bee in a Congregation without any power of appealing I thinke our brethren cannot teach for when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessitie of keeping Moses his Law or any difficill dogmaticall point they by natures direction Act. 15. 2. decree to send Pau ' Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders as to a higher judicature that their truth may bee determined and this they did without any positive law that wee can imagine for Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson as also the Author of the Church government of New England teach that the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficultie had not light â—o judge thereof Ergo they must acknowledge appeales by natures light warrantable as well as wee for suppose wee that a Congregation inclineth to this that Arminianisme is the sound doctrine of grace opposite to Stoicisme one man is cited before the Congregation for holding the contrary hee knoweth all the Congregation in those points to be Pelagians would not our brethren say that this man so unjustly accused for holding the truth against the enemies of grace may appeale to a Synod I thinke they must teach this by their grounds though by the way I thinke the brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversie Act. 15. in this case 1. when the Churches of Syria and Cilicia to their knowledge were troubled with the like question as v. 24. may cleare 2. when as the partie against the truth was so prevalent within the Church of Antioch Act. 15. 2. as that they opposed the Apostle Pau ' and Barnabas also in this case I doubt much if they had power to determine a question that so much concerned all the Churches for that was proper to a Synod of many Churches 2. When the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth as is cleare Act. 15. 2. I beleeve in that they lose their jus their right to determine eaâ—enus in so farre for Christ hath given no ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for the truth and therefore in this appeales must bee necessary Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Herle c. 2. p. 17. 18. say we do much Judaizein that we multiply appeales upon appeales from the Congregation to a Classe then to a Synod then to a nationall assembly then to an â—eckmenick councell and this way while the world indureth causes are never determined and Synods cannot alwayes bee had even as in Jerusalem the supreme judicature was farre remote from all proselytes as from the Eunuch of Aethiopia Act. 8. and from the remotest parts of the holy Land But God hath provided better for us in the New Testament where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the controversie Answ. 1. The speedinesse of ending controversies in a congregation is badly compensed with the suddainnesse and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the decision of three Elders without so much as asking advise of any classes of Elders and with deciding questions deepe and grave that concerneth many Churches which is a putting a private sickle in a common and publick harvest 2. All appeales without just warrant from Christs will wee condemne as the abuse of appeales to a court which is knowne shall never bee 3. Antiochs appeale to a Synod two hundreth miles distant as our brethren say in so weighty a question was no Judaizing but that which Paul and the Apostles was guiltie of as well as wee 4. Matters concerning many Churches must bee handled by many The Doctrine of the Presbyteriall Churches of Jerusalem Corinth Ephesus Antioch vindicated VVEe are convinced from the numerous multitude of beleevers and the multitude of Pastors at this famous and mother Church of the Christians at Jerusalem to beleeve the frame and mould was presbyteriall and that it cannot bee so much as imagined or dreamed that it was moulded to the patterne of one single Congregation which could all meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place The frame of an independent single Congregation is such as no more doe meet ordinarily in one house then may conveniently bee edified in partaking of one Word and one breaking of bread that is one Table at the Supper of the Lord nor can wee imagine that the first mould of a Christian visible Church was so inconvenient as that it crossed edification and conversion which is the formall effect of a Church-meeting Now the multitude was such as could not neither morally nor physically meet in one house For at one Table many thousands and multiplied thousands could not meer and therefore consider their number they were Act. 1. a hundreth and twentie met in one place but I shall not bee of the opinion that this was all seeing 1 Cor. 15. 6. Christ after his resurrection was seene of Cephas then of the twelve after that hee was seene of above five hundreth brethren then in one day at one Sermon about three thousand soules Act. 2. 42. and ch 4. 4. though they were apprehended who preached the Gospell yet many of them which heard the Word beleeved and the number of the men was about five thousand I deny not but worthy Calvin saith id potius de tota ecclesia quam de nova accessione intelligendum this was the whole number including the three thousand that were converted c. 2. but first hee saith Potius hee inclineth rather to this opinion but secondly the Text saith of those which heard the word it would seeme to mee at the second Sermon of Peter and Augustine Chrysostome Bedâ— Basilius Oecumenius Hieronym Ireneus make this number divers from the former so doe Cornelius a Lap. Salmeron Stapletonus l Sanctius Lorinus Lyranus Cajetanus but we shall not contend about the matter nor yet whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 includeth women which it often doth in the Greek as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes doth also yet the wisdome of God in the Apostles cannot admit us to imagine that five thousand could ordinarily meet to the Word Sacraments and government in one house and after this many thousands were added to this Church 1. Our brethren say it is one thing to say that they could not meet in one place by reason of extrinsecall impediments of persecution and through want of a capacious and large roome and another thing to say that it was unpossible that they could bee one Congregation and meet in one place for though wee prove they could not meet because of persecution wee doe not prove that they were so numerous that they could not conveniently meet in one place Answ. Though it bee
Gerson as also Glorianus but he who is casten out as a Schismaticke is in the same case with an excommunicate person Lastly baptisme is not a priviledge of a particular visible Church onely nor doth the place of 1 Cor. 12. vers 13. meane of the visible parishionall Church of Corinth but of the whole visible Church of Jew and Gentile bond and free as the words doe beare Quest. III. In what cases it is lawfull to separate from a Church In this discourse three things must bee discussed 1. With what Church retaining the doctrine of fundamentalls we are to remaine 2. Whether our separation from Rome bee not warrantable 3. Whether wee may lawfully separate from true Churches for the sinnes of the Churches 1 Cor. 3. 11. Another foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Jesus Christ. Hence Jesus Christ is the foundation of faith reall or personall and the knowledge of Christ is the dogmaticall foundation of faith Upon this foundation some build gold that is good doctriae some hay and stubble that is as Calvin faith curious doctrine Pareus vaine and frivolous doctrine We are to distinguish betwixt articles of faith or res fidei matters of faith and fundamentall points of faith Matters of faith I reduce to three 1. Fundamentall points 2. Supra-fundamentalia superstructions â—â—illed upon fundamentalls 3. Circa-fundamentalia things about maâ—ers of Faith for praeter fundamentalia things indifferent and besides the foundation in matters of Religion and morall carriage I acknowledge none fundamentalls are the vitall and noble parts or the soule of Divinitie The ignorance of fundamentalls condemneth which is to be understood two wayes 1. The Ignorance of fundamentalls such as are supernaturall fundamentalls condemneth all within the visible Church as a sinne but it doth not formally condemne those who are without the visible Church Job 15. 22. It onely maketh those who are without the Church incurable but doth not formally condemne them as medicine not knowne and so not refused maketh sicke men incurable as a losse but doth not kill them as a sinne 2. Superstructures which by consequence arise from fundamentalls are fundamentalls by consequent and secondarily as the second ranke of stones that are immediatly laid upon the foundation are a foundation in respect of the higher parts of the wall and therefore are materially fundamentall and the ignorance of these virtually condemne and the denying of such by consequence is a denying of the foundation Things about the foundation circa fundamentalia are all things revealed in the word of God as all Histories Miracles Chronolâ—gie things anent Orion the Pleiades the North starres Job 38. 31. 32. That Paul left his cloakc at Troas The knowledge of these is considered three wayes 1. As necessary by necessitie of a meane necessitate medii and the knowledge so is not necessary to salvation many are in glory I doubt not who lived in the visible Church and yet knew never that Sampson killed a Lion but the knowledge of all these is necessary necessitate praecepti because all in the visible Church are oblieged to know these things therefore the ignorance of these onely doth not actually condemne but virtually and by demerit lead to condemnation 2. This knowledge is considered as commanded in the excellency thereof and so error and bad opinions about these are sinfully ill though in the regenerate by accident such errors condemne not where the foundation is holden 3. The knowledge of these is considered as commanded and enjoyned to us with the submission of faith for the authority of God the Speaker and the malicious opposing of these is a fundamentall error not formally but by evident consequent for though the matter of these errors be not fundamentall yet the malicious opposing of these is a fundamentall error against this principle What ever God saith is true but God saith there were eight soules in the Arke of Noah Hence because the historiall things of Scripture and things about the foundation as that Paul purified himselfe with the Jewes Act. 21. that Paul rebuked Peter Gal. 2. is no lesse true because God hath so spoken in his Word then this fundamentall point Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners it is cleare that the specifice and essentiall forme of a fundamentall article is not taken from the authoritie of God speaking in the Word seeing Gods authoritie is one and the same in all that he speaketh but from the influence that the knowledge of an article hath to unite us to God in Christ and bring us to salvation And secondly it will follow that this Thou shalt not by the use of things indifferent kill him for whom Christ died and the like be no lesse fundamentall by evident consequent in respect it is spoken by Gods own authority then articles of our faith Thirdly it followeth that formalists ignorantly divide matters of Gods worship into matters of Faith or points fundamentall and things indifferent as if many Scripturall truthes were not to be found in Gods Word such as the miracles of Moses and Elias the journeyes of Paul which are neither matters fundamentall nor yet things indifferent Fourthly many things may be fundamentall by consequent to one who can reade the Word and heareth it read which is not by consequent fundamentall to a rude and ignorant man The knowledge of points fundamentall is necessary 1. To obtaine salvation 2. To keepe communion with a true Church for we are to separate from a Church subverting the foundation and laying another foundation Fundamentalls are restricted by many to the Creed of Athanasius and Gregorius Nazimzen and Cyrillus of Jerusalem to the Apostles Creed as it is called others reduce all fundamentalls to the famous Creeds of Niâ—e of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedâ—n Estius restricteth fundamentalls to things necessary for the well ordering of our life Davenantius saith better That such are fundamentall the knowledge whereof is simply necessary to salvation iâ— ignorance whereof doth condemne Doctor Potter calleth them Pâ—ime and capitall doctrines of our Religion or of that faith which essentially constituteth a true Church and a true Christian which is good but that he contradivideth from these things not fundamentall which may be disputed on either side and cannot be determined by the Word of God and must lie under a non liquet is his error Yet he may know that Bellarmine saith right many things are of faith and cleare in Scripture as historicall relations which are not fundamentall Camero and a greater Divine then Camero Dom. Beza reduceth all fundamentalls to things which necessarily belongeth to faith and obedience and great Calvin retrincheth fundamentalls within the Apostles Creed Occam will have the militant Catholicke Church alwayes explicitely or expressly beleevings things necessary to salvation and our Divines teach that the Catholike Church cannot erre in fundamentalls they meane with pertinacie and obstinacie 2. In
ignorant of some lesse fundamentalls 2. Because we see in a mirror and imperfectly 3. In respect of beleeving upon a false ground as for miracles In respect of the object the certaintie is most sure as sure as that God cannot lie In respect of our adherence of understanding and affections in this respect the knowledge of fundamentalls must bee certaine 1. By a negative certitude which excludeth doubting and so Pastor and people must have a certitude of fundamentalls as Rom. 14 5. Col. 1. 9. Heb. 5. 12. but for a positive certitude there is not that measure required in a teacher that is in a scholler for all the body cannot be an eye 1 Cor. 12. 17. yet is a Christian certitude and fulnesse of perswasion required even of all Christians Colos. 2. 2. Colos. 3. 16. highest and greatest in its kind though many may bee saved with lesse yet a distinct knowledge of fundamentalls in all is not necessary by a necessitie of the meanes necessitate medii as Beza and Doctor Ames teach There is a faith of fundamentalls implicite in respect of the will and affections which Papists make a wide faith as the Jâ—uâ—e Becanus thinke to beleeve these two fundamentalls 1. That there is a God 2. That this God hath a providence conâ—â—â—ning mens salvation though other particulars be not knowne Or implicite faith is saith Estius when any is ready to beleeve what the Church shall teach which faith Suarez saith though it include ignorance yet keepeth men from the danger of errors because it doth submit the mind to the nearest rule of teaching to wit to the Church the knowledge of fundamentalls in this sense doth not save but condemne Thomas saith better then he 6. Dist. They are not alike who beleeve fundamentall hereâ—ies 2. And who defend them 3. And who teach them and obtrude them upon the consciences of others For the first many beleeve fundamentall errors who are ignorant of them and doe thinke that they firmely adhere to Christian Religion Oâ—cam termeth such haereticos nescientes ignorant heretickes as the Marcionites and the Manicheans and these the Church should tolerate while they bee instructed It is true the Jesuite Meratius saith When many things are proposed to the understanding for one and the same formall reason to wit for divine authoritie the understanding cannot imbrace one but it must imbrace all nor â—â—ject one but it must reject all which is true of a formall malitious rejecting the Manichean beleeveth nothing because God saith it and hath faith sound and saving in nothing but it is not true of an actuall or virtuall contempt in one or two fundamentalls because beleevers out of weakenesse ignorance and through strength of tentation may doubt of one fundamentall as the Disciples doubted of the resurrection Joh. 20. 9. and yet in habite beleeve all other fundamentalls but the Church is to correct such as professe fundamentall heresies and to cast out of the Church seducers and deceivers 7. Dist. It is one thing to hate a fundamentall point as that Christ is consubstantiall with the Father as the Arians doe and another thing by consequence to subvert a fundamentall point as Papists by consequence deny Christ to bee true man while they hold the wonder of Transubstantiation yet doe not they hate this conclusion formally that Christ is true man 8. Dist. Though it were true which Doctor Christo. Potter saith If we put by the Points wherein Christians differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the articles wherein they all gnerallaly agree we should finde in these propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient io bring a man to everlasting salvation I say though this were true yet will it not follow that these few fundamentalls received by all Christians Papists Lutherans Arians Verstians Sabellians Maccdonians Nestorians Eutychanes Socinians Anabaptists Treithitae Antitrinitarii for all these be Christians and validely baptized doe essentially constitute a true Church and a true Religion Because all Christians agree that the old and New Testament is the truth and Word of God and the whole faith of Christian Religion is to bee found in the Old Testament acknowledged both by Jewes and Christians for that is not the Word of God indeed in the Old Testament which the Jewes say is the Word of God in the Old Testament Yea the old and new Testament and these few uncâ—nâ—â—averted points received universally by all Christians are not Gods Word as all these Christians expone them but the dreames and fancies of the Jewes saying that the old Testament teacheth that Christ the Messiah is not yet come in the flesh the Treithitae say there be three Gods yet are the Treithitae Christians in the sense of Doctor Potter so that one principall as that There is one God and Christ is God and man and God is noely to be adored not one of these are uncontraverted in respect every society of Sectaries have contrary expositions upon these common fundamentalls and so contrary Religions Who doubteth but all Christians will subscribe and sweare with us Protestants the Apostolicke Creed but will it follow that all Christians are of one true Religion and doe beleeve the same fundamentalls now these fundamentalls are the object of faith according as they signifie things To us and to the Treithitae this first Article I beleeve in God as I conceive doth not signifie one and the same thing now joyne this I beleeve in God with holy obedience as wee expone it and as the Treithitae expone it it could never bee a step to everlasting salvation for it should have this meaning I beleeve there is one only true God and that there be also three Gods and what kind of obedience joyned with a faith made up of contradictions can bee availeable to salvation 3. One generall Catechise and confession of faith made up of the commonly received and agreed upon fundamentalls would not make us nearer peace though all Christians should sweare and subscribe this common Christian Catechise no more then if they should sweare and subscribe the old and new Testament as all Christians will doe and this day doth 9. Disl Though the knowledge of fundamentalls be necessary to salvation yet it cannot easily be defined what measure of knowledge of fundamentalls and what determinate number of fundamentalls doth constitute a true visible Church and a sound beleever as the learned Voetius saith Hence 1. They are saved who soundly beleeve all fundamentalls materially though they cannot distinctly know them under the reduplication of fundamentalls nor define what are fundamentalls what not 2. Though a Church retaine the fundamentalls yet if wee beforced to avow and beleeve as truth doctrines everting the foundation of faith against the article of one God if we must worship as many Gods as there bee hosties if Christs
free act 2. because it is a supernaturall worke of God and so they are not under the stroake of the Magistrates sword for freewill in supernaturall acts is alike uncogible and free from all externall violence in both those who are baptized professors within the bosome of the visible Church and in Pagans and the truth is neither the Magistrate nor the Church can censine opinions even erronious in fundamentall points as they are opinions for no societie no humane authoritie can either judge of or punish the internall acts of the mind because as such they are indeed offensive to God but not offensive or scandalous to either Church or Commonwealth and so without the Spheare of all humane coercive power nor is Titus Tit. 1. To rebuke gainesiyers v. 9. that they may be sound in the faith v. 13. but in so farre as that faith is visible and as it commeth out of perverse mouthes which must be stopped v. 11. Also punishments either civill or ecclesiasticall do no other wayes worke upon the mind and heart but by a morall swasory influence for it is a palpable contradiction that freewil can physically be compelled therefore here saith Philip Gamacheus there is no need of an Emperours sword but of a Fishers Angle Let it goe then which is taught as a truth in this point by Covarruvias e Gregori de Valent. Gamacheus Tannerus Malderus that Princes have neither from the Law of nature or from any divine Law a coercive power over the faith of Pagans nor is Scotus in this to bee heard that the same divine law obliegeth all Princes and the Churches that did lie upon Israel to destroy the Cansanites Yet may it bee lawfull in some cases indirectly to force them in their false worship as Molina saith against Alphonsus a Castro if they kill their innocent children to their false Gods because it is lawfull to defend the innocent neither is that to bee regarded as a sufficient reason that these Infants doe not consent that they should bee defended because as Malderus saith it is lawfull to hinder a man who is willing to kill himselfe from unjust violence against his owne liâ— 2. It is lawfull as saith Aegidius Conin k Lorca Aquinas and Cajetanus to compell Pagans to desist from violent impeding of Pastors to preach the Gospell to some amongst them who are willing to heare because in that they are injurious to the salvation of those who are appointed to bee saved and doe manifestly hinder the Gospels progresse which the Church is so farre as is in her power to propagate even as her prayer is let thy kingdome come 2. Nor doe we thinke that Princes may compell Pagans who are under their dominions to the faith without foregoing information of their conscience or that simply they may compell them to embrace the faith except that here Princes have greater libertie indirectly to force them because they being now living as wee suppose in a visible Church they may infect the Church and therefore here should bee an indirect hindering of the exercise of their false religion in so farre as it is infectious to the Church of God ne pars sincera trahatur for to this by a certaine proportion the power of excommunication given to the Church by Christ may lead us 1 Cor. 5. 6. and if wee must live by Lawes and not by examples Paul the fourth his suffering of the Jewes Synagogues at Rome and their ancient feasts which faith Malderus of themselves are not evill is no law to us yea but to Christians it is a falling from Christ and his grace nor is Rome who tolerateth Jewith religion nor the edict of Honorius and Theodosius our warrant 3. Nor can wee beleeve that no other sinnes in opinion concerning God his nature attributes worship and Church-discipline except onely such as are against those points which are called fundamentall and the received principles of Christianitie should bee censurable by the Church or punishable by the Magistrate 1. Because Jesus Christ Mat. 18. ordaineth that every sin against our brother or a Church 1 Cor. 10. 31 32. in which the delinquent shall continue with obstinate refusall to heare the Church should bee censured with excommunication But there bee divers opinions concerning God his nature attributes worship and Church-discipline which are not against points fundamentall which being professed are sinnes against our brother and the Churches Ergo many opinions not against points fundamentall if professed are censurable by the Church and punishable by the Magistrate I prove the proposition because Christ Matth 18. maketh no distinction and exception of any sinne but saith universally v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if thy brother trespasse against thee c. and wee can make no exception against an indefinit and Catholick statute and ordinance of Jesus Christ. I prove the assumption because there bee many scandalous points of Arminianisme Pelagianisme of Poperic anent Church government traditions the power and â—fficacie of grace circumciâ—ion forbidding of marriages and of meates which are doctrines of devills comming from such as have consciences burnt with an hot Iron 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. many points of Anabaptisme Antinomianisme Socinianisme and of divers other sects are not points fundamentall because many no doubt are glorified who lived and beleeved in Christ and died â—gnorant of either opinions either on the one side or the other yet being professed preached and maintained especially wilfully and obstinately do wonderfully scandalize our brethren and the Churches Nor can I say that such as beleeve that marriage of Churchmen is unlawfull and defend it as many holy and learned men in Popery did and died in that error if otherwise they beleeve in Christ and the like I say of Chastising the body and abstaining from such and such meates which yet are doctrines of devills and offensive to our brethren 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. can bee points fundamentall so as the holding of these must bee inconsistent with saving faith Some doe yet maintain that circumcision is lawfull and yet beleeve all points fundamentall shall wee say that such are damned and wee read Gal. 5. 2. Behâ—ld I Paul say unto you that if yee bee circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing 2. Opinions in points not fundamentall are either sinnes forbidden by Gods Law or they are not sinnes the latter can by no reason bee asserted because God hath in his word determined all controversies not fundamentall as well as fundamentall therefore it is necessary necessitate praecepti by vertue of a divine precept that â—ee beleeve that to bee true what God saith in his Word therefore the not beleeving of it must bee a sinne and a transgression of a Divine Law 2. If it bee no sinne it must bee because the mind is under no Law of God except in so far as the minde is ruled and led
morall respect of a savour of some Pharisaicall ostentation that you pray to be seene of men and so the circumstance now is morall and is to be regulated by the Word whereas the circumstance that is meerely physicall is not as it is such in any capacity to receive scripturall regulation nothing is required but a physicall convenience for the action Now for fundamentall superstructures for things about the foundation in so farre as they have warrant in the Word to me they oblige to faith and practises in so farre as the Lord intimateth to us in his Word either expressely or by good consequence that they are lawfull Now I may adde to these that there be some things adjacent circumvenient circumstantiall to these fundamentals superstructions and others that I named wherein mutuall tolerance is commendable Nor doe we thinke any Church Reformation so perfect as that reformers have not left it in some capacity more or lesse of receiving increase and latitude of Reformation but truely I doe not see the consequence that therefore in all points not fundamentall the conscience must be of that compliable latitude of Kid-leather to take in and let out so as none of these superstructures or non-fundamentals are to be beleeved but with a reserve that you take them to day as Gods truths and are in capacity to beleeve their contradicents to be Gods truth to morrow And for the place Phil. 3. 14. 15. The sense given by Zanchius pleaseth me We that are reputed perfect let us all think and mind this truth that I write to contend for the price of the high-calling of God and if any mind any other thing contrary to or diverse from my doctrine God in his owne time shall reveale it to him Zanchius saith Deus id quoque revelabit suo tempore nempe an falsum sit vel verum God shall reveale it to him in his owne time whether it be true or false to which part I doe not subscribe that God shall reveale to any other minded then Paul whether his doctrine be true or false for that may inferre a possibility that Paul taught in this point or in the matter of ceremonies something false but the meaning is God shall make him know by the revelation of truth that what I have taught is true and he addeth as Zanchius Estius Cornelius à Lapide Sâ—lmeron yea our owne Calvine Marlorat and others upon this condition that they walke with us in peace and concord according to the 〈◊〉 the Gospel and that these words are a condition I beleeve because Christ saith John 7. 17. If any man will doe his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe But I see nothing here that reacheth the conclusion that we deny it will beare this indeed if any man be otherwise minded and thinke that Paul hath not delivered sound doctrine either concerning our pressing forward toward the prise of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ or concerning ceremonies that is if any man beleeve untruths contrary to Pauls doctrine let him beleeve these untruths leaving roome to Gods light to bow downe under truths feet when God shall reveale that Pauls doctrine is true and that his thoughts diverse from Pauls doctrine was misapprehensions and errours but there is nothing here that if any beleeve true non-fundamentals he is to beleeve them with a reserve that if God with a new light shall appear to discover these truths to be untruths he shall change his mind Now the supposition is vaine and as unpossible as to say God can contradict and belie his owne truth nor is there any word of toleration of Sects in the text Yea but say they Paul professeth to walke according to the rule to which they 〈◊〉 all attained with those who are contrary minded Ergo we are to tolerate and to keepe peaceable communion with those who are contrary minded in opinions and disagree from us Answ. Marke I pray you that Paul doth not say he will walke with them and keepe communion with them simply but onely 1. while God shall reveale their error and by his light make them see that Pauls doctrine is true 2. So in other things they be of one minde with Paul as perfect men should be and so I thinke Paul doth indeed condemne separation and breach of love for diversity of opinions in some things and we doubt not but if the servant of the Lord should with gentlenesse instruct malicious opposers of the truth and wait on them to see if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. farre rather should Paul walke with those that are perfect according to the same rule though they be of another mind but it followeth not that those who are of another mind from Paul should 1 obstinately continue in that mind after that God hath by writings and dispute convinced them of their error 2. It followeth not that their obâ—tinate continuance in their error should alwayes be tolerated and never censured especially if it be such an error as causeth divisions and offences Rom. 16. 17. for then such should be avoided saith Paul in that same place 3. It followeth not that we are to beleeve no superstructures or non-fundamentals but with a reserve it is observable that Paul speaketh here of those who beleeve errors and doctrines contrary to Pauls doctrine Now consider then the force of the argument those who beleeve errors contrary to Pauls doctrine have no certainty of faith that what they beleeve is true and therefore must beleeve with a reserve leaving roome to new light therefore those who beleeve any true superstructures and any non-fundamentals have also no certainty of faith but must beleeve with a reserve that when light shall appeare they shall beleeve the contradicent of what they now beleeve there is no force in this connexion It is just like the question betwixt us and the Papists whether a man can be certaine with any divine and infallible certainty that he is in the state of grace and salvation Papists say hypocrites beleeve that they are in the state of grace and yet they have no certainty thereof Ergo say they the regenerate beleeving that they are in the state of grace can have no certainty This is a very ill consequence for a sleeping man is not certaine whether he be dreaming or waking Ergo a waking man knoweth not whether he be waking or not So a distracted man hath no certainty that he is as wise as seven men who can render a reason therefore a man sober in his wits knoweth not that he is in his sober wits these be poore and loose consequences It is true when we beleeve some alterable circumstances of some things rather about then in doctrine and discipline which are disputable and to us both sides have great probability we have not certainty of faith and possible here in
detestable Hereticks have consciences representing to them fundamentall truthes as lies and untruths and have died for these lies did they suffer for righteousnesse for that and yet to their judgement that which they suffered for was truth All the legall obligation is here from Gods Law not from our conscience Arminians Socinians Anabaptists imagine that our conscience is the nearest rule of our actions which is most false our present judgement is never a binding Law to us for the time to come no not when we beleeve fundamentalls Gods Word because it is Gods Word is a binding Law onely our judgement is regula regulata and not regula regulans to be led and not a leading or binding Law to us for conscience because conscience is no more a Pope to us then the dictates of the Bishop of Rome speaking out of his chaire can captivate the conscience of any man and Malderus holdeth that our opinion is a Law according to Ambrose and hee correcteth himselfe and saith our opinion or conscience non tam legem esse quam legis quaddam praeconium promulgationem insinuationem is not so much the Law of God as the promulgation of Gods Law but hee addeth which maketh the businesse as bad and saith promulgatio legis recte dicitur obligare but the truth is the promulgation of the Law doth not obliege for who can say that the Law hath an oblieging power from the Herald his act of proclaiming reading or declaring the Law the promulgation of the Law is an approximation of it to the understanding of the people but the Law of man hath its oblieging power from the honesty of the matter of the Law and it hath its obligation to punishment not from the Herauld but from the authoritie of the Law-giver And our conscience doth onely promulgate Gods oblieâ—ing Law but it layeth not on us the oblieging power except wee speake of an oblieging power in the manner of receiving and beleeving the Law of God that is as I said that wee receive not as a truth what God proposeth as an untruth or that wee receive not as a lie what God proposeth as spoken by himselfe for that is to receive truths against the light of our conscience And when Ambrose calleth our opinion an obliging Law he speaketh as Augustine often doth of the Law of nature which is that habituall opinion naturall that wee have of right and wrong or of the â—aw written in our heart I would not here distinguish betwixt recta ratio right reason and vera ratio true reason for some make right reason the nearest rule of our actions so as the action is lawfull it our conscience perswade to it though the action swaâ—ve and decline from Gods Law For to mee reason is never right which is not true and agreeable to Gods Law It is objected if one shall beleeve it is lawfull to kill a protestant King because it is good service in God to kill a heretick as there bee good store of consciences of this mettall amongst the nation of Jesuiâ—es if hee kill him not bee sinneth against God because be sinneth against the light of his conscience by the sinfull omitting of good service to God and if bee kill him 〈◊〉 sinneth also in committing murther both against the sixt Commandement and also against the fist which commandeth to honour Kings out of which it must follow that either an erring conscience because it is conscience obliegeth us to doe that which because wee doe it in obedience to an erring consceence now leaveth off to bee sinne to the actor under this condition of conscience or then that there may bee such a perplexitie wherein a man by way of contradiction whether hee doe such â—n all or doe it not is necessitated by Gods providence to sinne which absurdity shall make God the author of sinne Answ. There is no necessitie by way of contradiction that a man thus perplexed must sinne whether hee doe or not doe such anaction for I give easily a third case different from both for such a perplexed Jesuite is neither oblieged to kill the Prince nor yet to abstaine from killing in such a perplexed manner but hee is oblieged not to kill the Lords annointed tali modo hee is oblieged to abstinence but not to abstinence tali modo such a way for hee is oblieged to lay aside his erroneous and hereticall conscience and so to abstaine from killing with a well informed conscience for no man is brought under a lawfull perplexitie to sinne but men may bring themselves under sinfull perplexities of conscience which is not to bee fathered upon the holy Lord who hateth sinne with a perfect hatred I answer to the places Mark 9. 30. and Luk. 9. they be manifestly corrupted for the man who cast out devills in Christs name and followed not Christ was not a man who followed the light of an erroneous conscience who thought it service to God to cast out devills in Christs name and not to follow Christ for hee was not oblieged to follow Christ as the Disciples followed him except he had had the same command to follow Christ that the Apostles had which wee read not of nay it is most like if it had beene the error of his conscience not to follow Christ then should Christ have rebuked it but Christ did not rebuke it in the man but directly insinuateth v. 40. that the man was with Christ and a spirituall follower of Christ though hee did not in such a bodily way follow Christ as did Judas and the eleven and it was the fault of the Disciples to tie all the duties of a Disciple casting out devills in Christs name to a bodily following of Christ which was their pride 3. It is a good way to refute sects and erroneous opinions by Scriptures and so is it a good way to convince an incestuous man of the hainousnesse of his sinne by Scriptures and to convince Hymeneus and Alexander of their blasphemous opinions by Scripture for Scripture layeth open the vildnesse of sinnes and hereâ—es but it doth not follow therefore it is not also a good way to deliver incestuous persons and blasphemets to Satan that the spirit may bee saved in the day of the Lord and that they may learne not to blaspheme 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 5. Preaching of the Word is one meane to beare downe sects and erroneous opinions but it taketh not away but establisheth Church-discipline as another meane and the one is subordinate to the other if Matth. 18. an offending brother can bee convinced and brought to repentance by the power of the Word as all rebukes must bee from the Word it is good but if he remaine obstinate in his offence Christ will have the man excommunicated and esteemed a Heatben and a Publicâ—n 4. It is a vaine thing to say that God hath refuted all hereâ—â—s in the Word and therefore there is no need of Synods to refute them and to make